On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 11:12:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12/07/2022 19:25, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 05:06:25PM +0200, Alexander Stein wrote: > >> The TI USB8041 is a USB 3.0 hub controller with 4 ports. > >> > >> This initial version of the binding only describes USB related aspects > >> of the USB8041, it does not cover the option of connecting the controller > >> as an i2c slave. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Well, this is essentially a ripoff of > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/realtek,rts5411.yaml with USB IDs > >> replaced, reset-gpio added and example adjusted. > >> IMHO this should be merged together with realtek,rts5411.yaml. Is it ok > >> to rename bindings files? I guess a common onboard-usb-hub.yaml matching > >> the driver seens reasonable. Any recommendations how to proceed? > > > > It's a tradeoff between keeping the individual bindings simple and avoid > > unnecessary duplication. The current RTS5411 and TI USB8041 bindings are > > very similar, which suggests combining them. However over time hubs with > > diverging features could be added (e.g. with multiple regulators, a link > > to an I2C/SPI bus, a clock, ...). With that a common binding might become > > too messy. > > > > From a quick look through Documentation/devicetree/bindings it doesn't > > seem common to have generic bindings that cover components from multiple > > vendors. In that sense I'm leaning towards separate bindings. > > > > Rob, do you have any particular preference or suggestion? > > Not Rob, but my suggestion is not to merge bindings of unrelated > devices, even if they are the same class. By unrelated I mean, made by > different companies, designed differently and having nothing in common > by design. Bindings can be still similar, but should not be merged just > because they are similar. Thanks for your advice, let's keep separate bindings then.
