On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:

quoted

quoted

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.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel