On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote: > On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200 > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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. > > Well, I mentioned it as I will only use the family compatible string > and not the SOC (lan9662 or lan9668) compatible string in lan966x.dtsi. > In this case, the family compatible string can be seen as a kind of > "wildcard". I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles. I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style? Best regards, Krzysztof
