[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <F6929BAA-D552-4C34-B392-33AEA263F0C9@goldelico.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:00:27 +0200
From: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Zhou Yanjie <zhouyanjie@...yeetech.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
hminas@...opsys.com, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, dragancecavac@...oo.com,
dongsheng.qiu@...enic.com, qipengzhen <aric.pzqi@...enic.com>,
rick.tyliu@...enic.com, sernia.zhou@...mail.com,
zhenwenjin@...il.com, reimu@...omaker.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: dwc2: Add bindings for new Ingenic
SoCs.
> Am 14.04.2022 um 09:32 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>:
>
> On 13/04/2022 21:30, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> So we need "snps,dwc2" to get any driver match and I thought the "ingenic,jz4780-otg" is redundant.
>>
>> But maintainers convinced me to keep it as a dummy compatible in the .dtsi for potential future
>> specialization (which does not exist and seems not to be necessary).
>
> Isn't exactly the next patch 2/2 using such specialization?
>
>> Unless I can convince them
>> that this is never ever needed. Which is beyond my knowledge and almost everyone.
>>
>> So we can't remove the "snps,dwc2" here.
>>
>> Well, we can with more work elsewhere.
>> You have to extend the dwc2_of_match_table to include all ingenic devices.
>>
>> Therefore we now know 3 potential solutions:
>> a) remove "ingenic,jz4780-otg" from jz4780.dtsi (my proposal)
>> b) add "ingenic,jz4780-otg" to dwc2.yaml together with "snps,dwc2" (your proposal + my suggestion here)
>> c) add only "ingenic,jz4780-otg" to dwc2.yaml and extend the match table in drivers//usb/dwc2/params.c (new proposals)
>>
>> From consistency point of view I think variant b) is the right one. a) was rejected and c) only adds redundant code.
>
> c) was already proposed by Zhou, so if you think the code is not correct
> (the params for jz4780) maybe nack it there, so we will know that driver
> needs fixes.
Ah, ok. Now I see. I was just focussed on this patch and related dtbscheck
messages and did not read patch 2/2.
Yes, looking at both, they are variant c). Sorry that I didn't see it earlier.
As said: I am open to anything as long as the dtbscheck doesn't complain any more.
BR and sorry for the confusion,
Nikolaus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists