Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <862862a6-afde-234a-ccb1-d3781d867775@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 20 May 2022 16:05:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x
 compatible string
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
References: <20220513105850.310375-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com>
 <20220513105850.310375-3-herve.codina@bootlin.com>
 <8f0d4127-7e66-cf50-21c9-99680f737e30@linaro.org>
 <20220520133426.3b4728ae@bootlin.com>
 <b087c34f-0e2f-edd0-a738-3ffc2853a41b@linaro.org>
 <20220520142109.57b84da2@bootlin.com>
 <01b31a02-523e-10bf-3b46-5b830e456522@linaro.org>
 <20220520150243.625723fa@bootlin.com>
 <d26c7ebd-fc1a-391e-39e4-5ec41bf4fbfa@linaro.org>
 <YoedFkAsTdoOn/3Y@mail.local>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <YoedFkAsTdoOn/3Y@mail.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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@linaro.org> 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