Hi Krzysztof, On Fri, 20 May 2022 13:40:13 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 20/05/2022 13:34, Herve Codina wrote: > > On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:57:55 +0200 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote: > >>> The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC > >>> is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC. > >>> > >>> Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible > >>> string as a fallback for the LAN966x. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++ > >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt > >>> index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt > >>> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties: > >>> "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc" > >>> "atmel,sama5d3-udc" > >>> "microchip,sam9x60-udc" > >>> + "microchip,lan996x-udc" > >> > >> No wildcards please, especially that it closely fits previous wildcard > >> (lan996x includes lan9960 which looks a lot like sam9x60...) > >> > > > > Well, first, I made a mistake. It should be lan966x instead of lan996x. > > > > This family is composed of the LAN9662 and the LAN9668 SOCs. > > > > Related to the wilcard, lan966x is used in several bindings for common > > parts used by both SOCs: > > - microchip,lan966x-gck > > - microchip,lan966x-cpu-syscon > > - microchip,lan966x-switch > > - microchip,lan966x-miim > > - microchip,lan966x-serdes > > - microchip,lan966x-pinctrl > > And for new bindings I pointed that it is not preferred, so already few > other started using specific compatible. > > > > > I think it makes sense to keep 'microchip,lan966x-udc' for the USB > > device controller (same controller on LAN9662 and LAN9668) and so > > keeping the same rules as for other common parts. > > Having wildcard was rather a mistake and we already started correcting > it, so keeping the "mistake" neither gives you consistency, nor > correctness... > I think that the "family" compatible should be present. This one allows to define the common parts in the common .dtsi file (lan966x.dtsi in our case). What do you think about: - microchip,lan9662-udc - microchip,lan9668-udc - microchip,lan966-udc <-- Family lan966 is defined as the family compatible string since (1) in bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml and in Documentation/arm/microchip.rst (1) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211004105926.5696-1-kavyasree.kotagiri@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Regards, Herve -- Hervé Codina, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
