Hello, On 20/05/2022 15:38:36+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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? > Honestly, I would just go for microchip,lan9662-udc. There is no difference between lan9662 and lan9668 apart from the number of switch ports. -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
