On 24-02-22, Marco Felsch wrote: > On 24-02-22, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 15/02/2024 22:28, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > The NXP PTN5110 [1] is an TCPCI [2] compatible chip, so add the fallback > > > binding. > > > > > > [1] https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/PTN5110.pdf > > > [2] https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/documents/usb-port_controller_specification_rev2.0_v1.0_0.pdf > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > v2: > > > - rephrase commit message > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml > > > index eaedb4cc6b6c..7bd7bbbac9e0 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml > > > @@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ maintainers: > > > > > > properties: > > > compatible: > > > - const: nxp,ptn5110 > > > + enum: > > > + - nxp,ptn5110 > > > + - tcpci > > > > That's not a fallback, but enum. Fallback is "items" and then you could > > Damn, you're right. Sorry. > > > also send a follow-up patchset (separate, so Greg won't take it) fixing > > DTS (if not, let me know, so I will fix it). > > Sry. but I don't get this. Why do I need to send a follow-up? Greg did > not apply anything, at least I didn't received an e-mail, that this > patchset was picked. Got it now and made it this way. Regards, Marco
