On 20/05/2022 15:52, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > 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. Thank you, and maybe that was misunderstanding - I do not propose to add additional lan9668 compatible, if it is not actually needed. Best regards, Krzysztof
