[PATCH 0/3] Microchip LAN966x USB device support

[PATCH 0/3] Microchip LAN966x USB device support

[Herve Codina]

Hi,

This series add support for the USB device controller available on
the Microchip LAN966x SOCs.

This controller is the same as the one present on the SAMAD3 SOC.

Regards,
Herve

Herve Codina (3):
  clk: lan966x: Fix the lan966x clock gate register address
  dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string
  ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt |  3 +++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi                      | 11 +++++++++++
 drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c                           |  2 +-
 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.35.1

[PATCH 0/3] Microchip LAN966x USB device support

[Herve Codina]

Hi,

This series add support for the USB device controller available on
the Microchip LAN966x SOCs.

This controller is the same as the one present on the SAMAD3 SOC.

Regards,
Herve

Herve Codina (3):
  clk: lan966x: Fix the lan966x clock gate register address
  dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string
  ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt |  3 +++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi                      | 11 +++++++++++
 drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c                           |  2 +-
 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.35.1


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

[PATCH 1/3] clk: lan966x: Fix the lan966x clock gate register address

[Herve Codina]

The register address used for the clock gate register is the base
register address coming from first reg map (ie. the generic
clock registers) instead of the second reg map defining the clock
gate register.

Use the correct clock gate register address.

Fixes: 5ad5915dea00 ("clk: lan966x: Extend lan966x clock driver for clock gating support")
Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
---
 drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c b/drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c
index d1535ac13e89..81cb90955d68 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ static int lan966x_gate_clk_register(struct device *dev,
 
 		hw_data->hws[i] =
 			devm_clk_hw_register_gate(dev, clk_gate_desc[idx].name,
-						  "lan966x", 0, base,
+						  "lan966x", 0, gate_base,
 						  clk_gate_desc[idx].bit_idx,
 						  0, &clk_gate_lock);
 
-- 
2.35.1

[PATCH 1/3] clk: lan966x: Fix the lan966x clock gate register address

[Herve Codina]

The register address used for the clock gate register is the base
register address coming from first reg map (ie. the generic
clock registers) instead of the second reg map defining the clock
gate register.

Use the correct clock gate register address.

Fixes: 5ad5915dea00 ("clk: lan966x: Extend lan966x clock driver for clock gating support")
Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
---
 drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c b/drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c
index d1535ac13e89..81cb90955d68 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk-lan966x.c
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ static int lan966x_gate_clk_register(struct device *dev,
 
 		hw_data->hws[i] =
 			devm_clk_hw_register_gate(dev, clk_gate_desc[idx].name,
-						  "lan966x", 0, base,
+						  "lan966x", 0, gate_base,
 						  clk_gate_desc[idx].bit_idx,
 						  0, &clk_gate_lock);
 
-- 
2.35.1


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

[PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.

Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
string as a fallback for the LAN966x.

Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
@@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
 	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
 	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
 	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
+	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"
+	       For "microchip,lan996x-udc", the fallback "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
+	       is required.
  - reg: Address and length of the register set for the device
  - interrupts: Should contain usba interrupt
  - clocks: Should reference the peripheral and host clocks
-- 
2.35.1

[PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.

Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
string as a fallback for the LAN966x.

Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
@@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
 	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
 	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
 	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
+	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"
+	       For "microchip,lan996x-udc", the fallback "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
+	       is required.
  - reg: Address and length of the register set for the device
  - interrupts: Should contain usba interrupt
  - clocks: Should reference the peripheral and host clocks
-- 
2.35.1


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

[PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Herve Codina]

Add UDPHS (the USB High Speed Device Port controller) support.
The UDPHS IP present in the lan966x SOC is the same as the one
present in the SAMA5D3 SOC

Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
index 7d2869648050..4c09f3166d27 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
@@ -211,6 +211,17 @@ can0: can@e081c000 {
 			status = "disabled";
 		};
 
+		udc: udphs@e0808000 {
+			compatible = "microchip,lan996x-udc",
+				     "atmel,sama5d3-udc";
+			reg = <0x00200000 0x80000>,
+			      <0xe0808000 0x400>;
+			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 76 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+			clocks = <&clks GCK_GATE_UDPHS>, <&nic_clk>;
+			clock-names = "pclk", "hclk";
+			status = "disabled";
+		};
+
 		gpio: pinctrl@e2004064 {
 			compatible = "microchip,lan966x-pinctrl";
 			reg = <0xe2004064 0xb4>,
-- 
2.35.1

[PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Herve Codina]

Add UDPHS (the USB High Speed Device Port controller) support.
The UDPHS IP present in the lan966x SOC is the same as the one
present in the SAMA5D3 SOC

Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
index 7d2869648050..4c09f3166d27 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
@@ -211,6 +211,17 @@ can0: can@e081c000 {
 			status = "disabled";
 		};
 
+		udc: udphs@e0808000 {
+			compatible = "microchip,lan996x-udc",
+				     "atmel,sama5d3-udc";
+			reg = <0x00200000 0x80000>,
+			      <0xe0808000 0x400>;
+			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 76 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+			clocks = <&clks GCK_GATE_UDPHS>, <&nic_clk>;
+			clock-names = "pclk", "hclk";
+			status = "disabled";
+		};
+
 		gpio: pinctrl@e2004064 {
 			compatible = "microchip,lan966x-pinctrl";
 			reg = <0xe2004064 0xb4>,
-- 
2.35.1


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

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
> Add UDPHS (the USB High Speed Device Port controller) support.
> The UDPHS IP present in the lan966x SOC is the same as the one
> present in the SAMA5D3 SOC
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> index 7d2869648050..4c09f3166d27 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> @@ -211,6 +211,17 @@ can0: can@e081c000 {
>  			status = "disabled";
>  		};
>  
> +		udc: udphs@e0808000 {

Generic node names, so it looks like usb. For example HCD schema
requires it. I am not sure which bindings are used here, but anyway once
they might require usb...


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
> Add UDPHS (the USB High Speed Device Port controller) support.
> The UDPHS IP present in the lan966x SOC is the same as the one
> present in the SAMA5D3 SOC
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> index 7d2869648050..4c09f3166d27 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> @@ -211,6 +211,17 @@ can0: can@e081c000 {
>  			status = "disabled";
>  		};
>  
> +		udc: udphs@e0808000 {

Generic node names, so it looks like usb. For example HCD schema
requires it. I am not sure which bindings are used here, but anyway once
they might require usb...


Best regards,
Krzysztof

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
> The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
> is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.
> 
> Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
> string as a fallback for the LAN966x.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
>  	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
>  	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
>  	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
> +	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"

No wildcards please, especially that it closely fits previous wildcard
(lan996x includes lan9960 which looks a lot like sam9x60...)


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
> The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
> is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.
> 
> Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
> string as a fallback for the LAN966x.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
>  	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
>  	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
>  	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
> +	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"

No wildcards please, especially that it closely fits previous wildcard
(lan996x includes lan9960 which looks a lot like sam9x60...)


Best regards,
Krzysztof

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

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello!

On 5/13/22 1:58 PM, Herve Codina wrote:

> Add UDPHS (the USB High Speed Device Port controller) support.
> The UDPHS IP present in the lan966x SOC is the same as the one
> present in the SAMA5D3 SOC
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> index 7d2869648050..4c09f3166d27 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> @@ -211,6 +211,17 @@ can0: can@e081c000 {
>  			status = "disabled";
>  		};
>  
> +		udc: udphs@e0808000 {

   Shouldn't it be:

		udphs: udc@e0808000 {

(as the node names should be generic)?

[...]

MBR, Sergey

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello!

On 5/13/22 1:58 PM, Herve Codina wrote:

> Add UDPHS (the USB High Speed Device Port controller) support.
> The UDPHS IP present in the lan966x SOC is the same as the one
> present in the SAMA5D3 SOC
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> index 7d2869648050..4c09f3166d27 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> @@ -211,6 +211,17 @@ can0: can@e081c000 {
>  			status = "disabled";
>  		};
>  
> +		udc: udphs@e0808000 {

   Shouldn't it be:

		udphs: udc@e0808000 {

(as the node names should be generic)?

[...]

MBR, Sergey

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:57:55 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
> > The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
> > is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.
> > 
> > Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
> > string as a fallback for the LAN966x.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> > index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> > @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
> >  	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
> >  	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
> >  	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
> > +	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"  
> 
> No wildcards please, especially that it closely fits previous wildcard
> (lan996x includes lan9960 which looks a lot like sam9x60...)
> 

Well, first, I made a mistake. It should be lan966x instead of lan996x.

This family is composed of the LAN9662 and the LAN9668 SOCs.

Related to the wilcard, lan966x is used in several bindings for common
parts used by both SOCs:
- microchip,lan966x-gck
- microchip,lan966x-cpu-syscon
- microchip,lan966x-switch
- microchip,lan966x-miim
- microchip,lan966x-serdes
- microchip,lan966x-pinctrl

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.

Regards,
Hervé

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof



-- 
Hervé Codina, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:57:55 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
> > The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
> > is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.
> > 
> > Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
> > string as a fallback for the LAN966x.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> > index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> > @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
> >  	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
> >  	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
> >  	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
> > +	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"  
> 
> No wildcards please, especially that it closely fits previous wildcard
> (lan996x includes lan9960 which looks a lot like sam9x60...)
> 

Well, first, I made a mistake. It should be lan966x instead of lan996x.

This family is composed of the LAN9662 and the LAN9668 SOCs.

Related to the wilcard, lan966x is used in several bindings for common
parts used by both SOCs:
- microchip,lan966x-gck
- microchip,lan966x-cpu-syscon
- microchip,lan966x-switch
- microchip,lan966x-miim
- microchip,lan966x-serdes
- microchip,lan966x-pinctrl

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.

Regards,
Hervé

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof



-- 
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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/05/2022 13:34, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:57:55 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
>>> The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
>>> is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.
>>>
>>> Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
>>> string as a fallback for the LAN966x.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
>>> index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
>>> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
>>>  	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
>>>  	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
>>>  	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
>>> +	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"  
>>
>> No wildcards please, especially that it closely fits previous wildcard
>> (lan996x includes lan9960 which looks a lot like sam9x60...)
>>
> 
> Well, first, I made a mistake. It should be lan966x instead of lan996x.
> 
> This family is composed of the LAN9662 and the LAN9668 SOCs.
> 
> Related to the wilcard, lan966x is used in several bindings for common
> parts used by both SOCs:
> - microchip,lan966x-gck
> - microchip,lan966x-cpu-syscon
> - microchip,lan966x-switch
> - microchip,lan966x-miim
> - microchip,lan966x-serdes
> - microchip,lan966x-pinctrl

And for new bindings I pointed that it is not preferred, so already few
other started using specific compatible.

> 
> 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...


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/05/2022 13:34, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:57:55 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
>>> The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
>>> is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.
>>>
>>> Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
>>> string as a fallback for the LAN966x.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
>>> index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
>>> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
>>>  	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
>>>  	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
>>>  	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
>>> +	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"  
>>
>> No wildcards please, especially that it closely fits previous wildcard
>> (lan996x includes lan9960 which looks a lot like sam9x60...)
>>
> 
> Well, first, I made a mistake. It should be lan966x instead of lan996x.
> 
> This family is composed of the LAN9662 and the LAN9668 SOCs.
> 
> Related to the wilcard, lan966x is used in several bindings for common
> parts used by both SOCs:
> - microchip,lan966x-gck
> - microchip,lan966x-cpu-syscon
> - microchip,lan966x-switch
> - microchip,lan966x-miim
> - microchip,lan966x-serdes
> - microchip,lan966x-pinctrl

And for new bindings I pointed that it is not preferred, so already few
other started using specific compatible.

> 
> 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...


Best regards,
Krzysztof

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Fri, 20 May 2022 13:40:13 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 20/05/2022 13:34, Herve Codina wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:57:55 +0200
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:  
> >>> The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
> >>> is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.
> >>>
> >>> Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
> >>> string as a fallback for the LAN966x.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
> >>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> >>> index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> >>> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
> >>>  	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
> >>>  	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
> >>>  	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
> >>> +	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"    
> >>
> >> No wildcards please, especially that it closely fits previous wildcard
> >> (lan996x includes lan9960 which looks a lot like sam9x60...)
> >>  
> > 
> > Well, first, I made a mistake. It should be lan966x instead of lan996x.
> > 
> > This family is composed of the LAN9662 and the LAN9668 SOCs.
> > 
> > Related to the wilcard, lan966x is used in several bindings for common
> > parts used by both SOCs:
> > - microchip,lan966x-gck
> > - microchip,lan966x-cpu-syscon
> > - microchip,lan966x-switch
> > - microchip,lan966x-miim
> > - microchip,lan966x-serdes
> > - microchip,lan966x-pinctrl  
> 
> And for new bindings I pointed that it is not preferred, so already few
> other started using specific compatible.
> 
> > 
> > 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

(1) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211004105926.5696-1-kavyasree.kotagiri@microchip.com/

Regards,
Herve

-- 
Hervé Codina, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Fri, 20 May 2022 13:40:13 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 20/05/2022 13:34, Herve Codina wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:57:55 +0200
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:  
> >>> The USB device controller available in the Microchip LAN966x SOC
> >>> is the same IP as the one present in the SAMA5D3 SOC.
> >>>
> >>> Add the LAN966x compatible string and set the SAMA5D3 compatible
> >>> string as a fallback for the LAN966x.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt | 3 +++
> >>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> >>> index f512f0290728..a6fab7d63f37 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/atmel-usb.txt
> >>> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Required properties:
> >>>  	       "atmel,at91sam9g45-udc"
> >>>  	       "atmel,sama5d3-udc"
> >>>  	       "microchip,sam9x60-udc"
> >>> +	       "microchip,lan996x-udc"    
> >>
> >> No wildcards please, especially that it closely fits previous wildcard
> >> (lan996x includes lan9960 which looks a lot like sam9x60...)
> >>  
> > 
> > Well, first, I made a mistake. It should be lan966x instead of lan996x.
> > 
> > This family is composed of the LAN9662 and the LAN9668 SOCs.
> > 
> > Related to the wilcard, lan966x is used in several bindings for common
> > parts used by both SOCs:
> > - microchip,lan966x-gck
> > - microchip,lan966x-cpu-syscon
> > - microchip,lan966x-switch
> > - microchip,lan966x-miim
> > - microchip,lan966x-serdes
> > - microchip,lan966x-pinctrl  
> 
> And for new bindings I pointed that it is not preferred, so already few
> other started using specific compatible.
> 
> > 
> > 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

(1) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211004105926.5696-1-kavyasree.kotagiri@microchip.com/

Regards,
Herve

-- 
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

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Herve Codina]

Hi Krzysztof, Sergei

On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:54:26 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
> > Add UDPHS (the USB High Speed Device Port controller) support.
> > The UDPHS IP present in the lan966x SOC is the same as the one
> > present in the SAMA5D3 SOC
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> > index 7d2869648050..4c09f3166d27 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> > @@ -211,6 +211,17 @@ can0: can@e081c000 {
> >  			status = "disabled";
> >  		};
> >  
> > +		udc: udphs@e0808000 {  
> 
> Generic node names, so it looks like usb. For example HCD schema
> requires it. I am not sure which bindings are used here, but anyway once
> they might require usb...
> 

HCD are related to the Host controller.
Here we are talking about a device.

In existing bindings related to USB device (or OTG as an OTG can be a
host or a device) on several SOCs, we can find:
- usb1: gadget@fffa4000
- usb_otg: usb@1c13000
- usb: usb@47400000
- udc: usb@13040000
- usb_otg_hs: usb_otg_hs@4a0ab000


So I will change to
  udc: usb@e0808000

Is that ok for you ?

Regards,
Herve

-- 
Hervé Codina, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Herve Codina]

Hi Krzysztof, Sergei

On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:54:26 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 13/05/2022 12:58, Herve Codina wrote:
> > Add UDPHS (the USB High Speed Device Port controller) support.
> > The UDPHS IP present in the lan966x SOC is the same as the one
> > present in the SAMA5D3 SOC
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> > index 7d2869648050..4c09f3166d27 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
> > @@ -211,6 +211,17 @@ can0: can@e081c000 {
> >  			status = "disabled";
> >  		};
> >  
> > +		udc: udphs@e0808000 {  
> 
> Generic node names, so it looks like usb. For example HCD schema
> requires it. I am not sure which bindings are used here, but anyway once
> they might require usb...
> 

HCD are related to the Host controller.
Here we are talking about a device.

In existing bindings related to USB device (or OTG as an OTG can be a
host or a device) on several SOCs, we can find:
- usb1: gadget@fffa4000
- usb_otg: usb@1c13000
- usb: usb@47400000
- udc: usb@13040000
- usb_otg_hs: usb_otg_hs@4a0ab000


So I will change to
  udc: usb@e0808000

Is that ok for you ?

Regards,
Herve

-- 
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

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/05/2022 14:37, Herve Codina wrote:
>> Generic node names, so it looks like usb. For example HCD schema
>> requires it. I am not sure which bindings are used here, but anyway once
>> they might require usb...
>>
> 
> HCD are related to the Host controller.
> Here we are talking about a device.
> 
> In existing bindings related to USB device (or OTG as an OTG can be a
> host or a device) on several SOCs, we can find:
> - usb1: gadget@fffa4000
> - usb_otg: usb@1c13000
> - usb: usb@47400000
> - udc: usb@13040000
> - usb_otg_hs: usb_otg_hs@4a0ab000
> 
> 
> So I will change to
>   udc: usb@e0808000
> 
> Is that ok for you ?

Yes, I proposed usb.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: dts: lan966x: Add UDPHS support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/05/2022 14:37, Herve Codina wrote:
>> Generic node names, so it looks like usb. For example HCD schema
>> requires it. I am not sure which bindings are used here, but anyway once
>> they might require usb...
>>
> 
> HCD are related to the Host controller.
> Here we are talking about a device.
> 
> In existing bindings related to USB device (or OTG as an OTG can be a
> host or a device) on several SOCs, we can find:
> - usb1: gadget@fffa4000
> - usb_otg: usb@1c13000
> - usb: usb@47400000
> - udc: usb@13040000
> - usb_otg_hs: usb_otg_hs@4a0ab000
> 
> 
> So I will change to
>   udc: usb@e0808000
> 
> Is that ok for you ?

Yes, I proposed usb.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:
>>>>> 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".

I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want
to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share
family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again
not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles.

I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to
implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:
>>>>> 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".

I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want
to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share
family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again
not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles.

I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to
implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Alexandre Belloni]

Hello,

On 20/05/2022 15:38:36+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:
> >>>>> 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".
> 
> I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want
> to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share
> family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again
> not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles.
> 
> I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to
> implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style?
> 

Honestly, I would just go for microchip,lan9662-udc. There is no
difference between lan9662 and lan9668 apart from the number of switch
ports.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Alexandre Belloni]

Hello,

On 20/05/2022 15:38:36+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:
> >>>>> 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".
> 
> I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want
> to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share
> family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again
> not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles.
> 
> I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to
> implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style?
> 

Honestly, I would just go for microchip,lan9662-udc. There is no
difference between lan9662 and lan9668 apart from the number of switch
ports.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, 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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/05/2022 15:52, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 20/05/2022 15:38:36+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:
>>>>>>> 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".
>>
>> I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want
>> to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share
>> family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again
>> not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles.
>>
>> I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to
>> implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style?
>>
> 
> Honestly, I would just go for microchip,lan9662-udc. There is no
> difference between lan9662 and lan9668 apart from the number of switch
> ports.

Thank you, and maybe that was misunderstanding - I do not propose to add
additional lan9668 compatible, if it is not actually needed.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/05/2022 15:52, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 20/05/2022 15:38:36+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:
>>>>>>> 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".
>>
>> I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want
>> to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share
>> family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again
>> not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles.
>>
>> I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to
>> implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style?
>>
> 
> Honestly, I would just go for microchip,lan9662-udc. There is no
> difference between lan9662 and lan9668 apart from the number of switch
> ports.

Thank you, and maybe that was misunderstanding - I do not propose to add
additional lan9668 compatible, if it is not actually needed.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

Hi Alexandre,

On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:52:22 +0200
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On 20/05/2022 15:38:36+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote:  
> > > On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
> > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >   
> > >> On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:  
> > >>>>> 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".  
> > 
> > I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want
> > to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share
> > family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again
> > not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles.
> > 
> > I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to
> > implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style?
> >   
> 
> Honestly, I would just go for microchip,lan9662-udc. There is no
> difference between lan9662 and lan9668 apart from the number of switch
> ports.
> 

Sounds good.
I will do that.

Thanks,
Hervé

-- 
Hervé Codina, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Herve Codina]

Hi Alexandre,

On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:52:22 +0200
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On 20/05/2022 15:38:36+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote:  
> > > On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
> > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >   
> > >> On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:  
> > >>>>> 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".  
> > 
> > I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want
> > to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share
> > family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again
> > not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles.
> > 
> > I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to
> > implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style?
> >   
> 
> Honestly, I would just go for microchip,lan9662-udc. There is no
> difference between lan9662 and lan9668 apart from the number of switch
> ports.
> 

Sounds good.
I will do that.

Thanks,
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