Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: dwc2: Add bindings for new Ingenic SoCs.

["H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>]

> Am 14.04.2022 um 09:32 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>:
> 
> On 13/04/2022 21:30, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> So we need "snps,dwc2" to get any driver match and I thought the "ingenic,jz4780-otg" is redundant.
>> 
>> But maintainers convinced me to keep it as a dummy compatible in the .dtsi for potential future
>> specialization (which does not exist and seems not to be necessary). 
> 
> Isn't exactly the next patch 2/2 using such specialization?
> 
>> Unless I can convince them 
>> that this is never ever needed. Which is beyond my knowledge and almost everyone.
>> 
>> So we can't remove the "snps,dwc2" here.
>> 
>> Well, we can with more work elsewhere.
>> You have to extend the dwc2_of_match_table to include all ingenic devices.
>> 
>> Therefore we now know 3 potential solutions:
>> a) remove "ingenic,jz4780-otg" from jz4780.dtsi (my proposal)
>> b) add "ingenic,jz4780-otg" to dwc2.yaml together with "snps,dwc2" (your proposal + my suggestion here)
>> c) add only "ingenic,jz4780-otg" to dwc2.yaml and extend the match table in drivers//usb/dwc2/params.c (new proposals)
>> 
>> From consistency point of view I think variant b) is the right one. a) was rejected and c) only adds redundant code.
> 
> c) was already proposed by Zhou, so if you think the code is not correct
> (the params for jz4780) maybe nack it there, so we will know that driver
> needs fixes.

Ah, ok. Now I see. I was just focussed on this patch and related dtbscheck
messages and did not read patch 2/2.

Yes, looking at both, they are variant c). Sorry that I didn't see it earlier.

As said: I am open to anything as long as the dtbscheck doesn't complain any more.

BR and sorry for the confusion,
Nikolaus