Hey, On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:26:04AM +0800, Stanley Chang wrote: > +properties: > + compatible: > + enum: > + - realtek,usb2phy > + - realtek,rtd-usb2phy > + - realtek,rtd1295-usb2phy > + - realtek,rtd1395-usb2phy > + - realtek,rtd1619-usb2phy > + - realtek,rtd1319-usb2phy > + - realtek,rtd1619b-usb2phy > + - realtek,rtd1312c-usb2phy > + - realtek,rtd1319d-usb2phy > + - realtek,rtd1315e-usb2phy > +properties: > + compatible: > + enum: > + - realtek,usb3phy > + - realtek,rtd-usb3phy > + - realtek,rtd1295-usb3phy > + - realtek,rtd1619-usb3phy > + - realtek,rtd1319-usb3phy > + - realtek,rtd1619b-usb3phy > + - realtek,rtd1319d-usb3phy Ignoring everything else, because I really want Krzysztof or Rob to review this rather than me, but what's going on here with the compatibles? What hardware do "usbNphy" and "rtd-usbNphy" represent? You have device-specific compatibles, which is great, but you also allow only those two generic ones. I had a _brief_ look at the driver, and it seems like there is no decision making done based on the compatibles, only on the properties. Is that correct? If it is, I would understand having "realtek,usb3phy" as a fallback compatible for "realtek,rtd1619-usb3phy", but I do not get the current setup. Also, I really think this should be broken down into two patches, one for each of USB 2 & 3. Cheers, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
