On 11/11/2023 2:00 PM, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
On 11/10/2023 6:58 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 07:00:22PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
Add bindings to indicate properties required to support multiport
on Synopsys DWC3 controller.
Suggested-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Krishna Kurapati <quic_kriskura@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dwc3.yaml | 13 +++++++------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dwc3.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dwc3.yaml
index a696f23730d3..5bc941355b43 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dwc3.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dwc3.yaml
@@ -85,15 +85,16 @@ properties:
phys:
minItems: 1
- maxItems: 2
+ maxItems: 8
phy-names:
minItems: 1
- maxItems: 2
- items:
- enum:
- - usb2-phy
- - usb3-phy
+ maxItems: 8
+ oneOf:
+ - items:
+ enum: [ usb2-phy, usb3-phy ]
+ - items:
+ pattern: "^usb[23]-port[0-3]$"
Shouldn't this just be
pattern: "^usb[23]-[0-3]$"
so that it matches the names that are used by the nvidia bindings?
We already have some inconsistency in that Amlogic uses a variant based
on the legacy names that needlessly includes "phy" in the names:
const: usb2-phy0
const: usb2-phy1
const: usb3-phy0
...
I don't think we should be introducing a third naming scheme here so I
suggest just following the nvidia bindings.
> In that case, why don't we use "^usb[23]-phy[0-3]$". I think its close
to what we have on dwc3 core already today (usb2-phy/usb3-phy).
I mean, it isn't needless. It is a phy and shouldn't the binding suggest
that and include "-phy" in the name ?
Regards,
Krishna,
