On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:
On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:
quoted
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.
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".
Regards,
Hervé
--
Hervé Codina, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel