On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote: >>> 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 > You can add some family compatible, if it makes sense. I don't get why do you mention it - we did not discuss family names, but using wildcards... Just please do not add wildcards. Best regards, Krzysztof
