[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <035ef8b9-36d5-4696-b576-35e051b687d5@microchip.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 13:51:19 +0000
From: <Andrei.Simion@...rochip.com>
To: <krzk@...nel.org>, <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
<Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
<robh@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
<peda@...ntia.se>
CC: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <Cristian.Birsan@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ARM: dts: microchip: Rename the usb node
Hi,
On 14.08.2024 16:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On 14/08/2024 14:26, Andrei Simion wrote:
>> Rename the usb node according to devicetree
>> specification and update the label according
>> with the node-specific standard as: ohci, ehci
>> or gadget.
>
> Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
> process (neither too early nor over the limit):
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
>
> ...
>
In V2 I will wrap the commit message according to Linux coding style / submission process
>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/aks-cdu.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/aks-cdu.dts
>> index 742fcf525e1b..52e166c8a365 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/aks-cdu.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/aks-cdu.dts
>> @@ -50,13 +50,13 @@ macb0: ethernet@...c4000 {
>> status = "okay";
>> };
>>
>> - usb1: gadget@...a4000 {
>> + gadget: usb@...a4000 {
>> atmel,vbus-gpio = <&pioC 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>> status = "okay";
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - usb0: ohci@...000 {
>> + ohci: usb@...000 {
>
> I don't think that these label renames are correct.
>
I checked in other dts dtsi (other silicon vendors) the USB node
and it uses ohci, ehci, gadget, etc as a label. Also, I verified the
address in the datasheet and they are correctly labeled (meant that
they were: usb gadget, usb ohci, usb ehci)
From what point of view is it not correct?
I would like to know so I can do it right
>> num-ports = <2>;
>> status = "okay";
>> };
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/animeo_ip.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/animeo_ip.dts
>> index 29936bfbeeb7..911c8d9ee013 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/animeo_ip.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/animeo_ip.dts
>> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ ubi@...00 {
>> };
>> };
>>
>> - usb0: ohci@...000 {
>> + ohci: usb@...000 {
>> num-ports = <2>;
>> atmel,vbus-gpio = <&pioB 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>> status = "okay";
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/at91-ariag25.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/at91-ariag25.dts
>> index 713d18f80356..fedcf30a924e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/at91-ariag25.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/at91-ariag25.dts
>> @@ -173,11 +173,11 @@ &usart3 {
>> status = "okay";
>> };
>>
>> -&usb0 {
>> +&ohci {
>> status = "okay";
>> num-ports = <3>;
>> };
>>
>> -&usb1 {
>> +&ehci {
>> status = "okay";
>> };
>
> And how now the sorting works? I don't get the point of it. What is
> exactly wrong in the label that justifies the code reshuffling.
>
The point is to be easy to determine what kind of standard
represents/implements the usb node.
> BTW, is this some sort of v2? If so, provide changelog and properly
> version your patches.
>
It was a new series and from now on there will be v2
BR,
Andrei Simion
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists