[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CX4NADEZZEO1.3TXPVNOONKBCF@tleb-bootlin-xps13-01>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:53:32 +0100
From: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>
To: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"Roger Quadros" <rogerq@...nel.org>,
"Peter Chen" <peter.chen@...nel.org>,
"Pawel Laszczak" <pawell@...ence.com>,
"Nishanth Menon" <nm@...com>,
"Vignesh Raghavendra" <vigneshr@...com>,
"Tero Kristo" <kristo@...nel.org>
Cc: <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Grégory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
"Conor Dooley" <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] dt-bindings: usb: ti,j721e-usb: add ti,j7200-usb
compatible
Hello,
On Mon Nov 20, 2023 at 6:32 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/11/2023 18:06, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> > On this platform, the controller & its wrapper are reset on resume. This
> > makes it have a different behavior from other platforms.
> >
> > We allow using the new compatible with a fallback onto the original
> > ti,j721e-usb compatible. We therefore allow using an older kernel with
>
> Where is fallback ti,j721e-usb used? Please point me to the code.
No fallback is implemented in code. Using a kernel that doesn't have
this patch series but a more recent devicetree: DT has both
devicetrees & the kernel will know which driver to use.
That is opposed to having only compatible = "ti,j7200-usb". If using an
old kernel, it would not know what driver to match it to.
[...]
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,j721e-usb.yaml
> > @@ -12,11 +12,15 @@ maintainers:
> > properties:
> > compatible:
> > oneOf:
> > + - const: ti,j7200-usb
> > - const: ti,j721e-usb
> > - const: ti,am64-usb
> > - items:
> > - const: ti,j721e-usb
> > - const: ti,am64-usb
> > + - items:
> > + - const: ti,j721e-usb
>
> This makes little sense. It's already on the list. Twice! Don't add it
> third time.
>
> I am sorry, but this binding makes no sense. I mean, existing binding
> makes no sense, but your change is not making it anyhow better.
The goal of the DT schema pre-patch was to allow all three:
compatible = "ti,j721e-usb";
compatible = "ti,am64-usb";
compatible = "ti,j721e-usb", "ti,am64-usb";
I've followed the same scheme & added both of those:
compatible = "ti,j7200-usb";
compatible = "ti,j7200-usb", "ti,j721e-usb";
I messed up the ordering in the added 'items' options, but the logic
seems right to me. And dtbs_check agrees. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
--
Théo Lebrun, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists