From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751489AbcEJIOv (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2016 04:14:51 -0400 Received: from regular1.263xmail.com ([211.150.99.130]:54636 "EHLO regular1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750974AbcEJIOr (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2016 04:14:47 -0400 X-263anti-spam: KSV:0; X-MAIL-GRAY: 0 X-MAIL-DELIVERY: 1 X-ABS-CHECKED: 4 X-ADDR-CHECKED: 0 X-KSVirus-check: 0 X-RL-SENDER: wulf@rock-chips.com X-FST-TO: balbi@kernel.org X-SENDER-IP: 58.22.7.114 X-LOGIN-NAME: wulf@rock-chips.com X-UNIQUE-TAG: X-ATTACHMENT-NUM: 0 X-DNS-TYPE: 0 Message-ID: <57319866.9010404@rock-chips.com> Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:14:30 +0800 From: William Wu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Felipe Balbi , Brian Norris CC: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, heiko@sntech.de, dianders@google.com, kever.yang@rock-chips.com, huangtao@rock-chips.com, frank.wang@rock-chips.com, eddie.cai@rock-chips.com, John.Youn@synopsys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] usb: dwc3: of-simple: add compatible for rockchip References: <1462794377-6528-1-git-send-email-william.wu@rock-chips.com> <1462794377-6528-2-git-send-email-william.wu@rock-chips.com> <20160509192447.GA118455@google.com> <87ziry759d.fsf@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <87ziry759d.fsf@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear Felipe and Brian, On 05/10/2016 03:15 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > Brian Norris writes: >> Hi William, >> >> Did you leave off linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org intentionally? IMO, >> it's nice to have that list in CC, so interested parties can follow your >> work, even if they aren't as fortunate as me to have been CC'd on your >> patch directly. Actually, I don't know the linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org before. I'll add the list in CC next patch version. Thanks~ >> >> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 07:46:14PM +0800, William Wu wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: William Wu >>> --- >>> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-of-simple.c | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-of-simple.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-of-simple.c >>> index 9743353..1f3665b 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-of-simple.c >>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-of-simple.c >>> @@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops dwc3_of_simple_dev_pm_ops = { >>> static const struct of_device_id of_dwc3_simple_match[] = { >>> { .compatible = "qcom,dwc3" }, >>> { .compatible = "xlnx,zynqmp-dwc3" }, >>> + { .compatible = "rockchip,dwc3" }, >> Add to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/. Do we need a new >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/rockchip,dwc3.txt, to match the >> pattern of qcom and xlnx? Or can we just add to dwc3.txt, since so far, >> all bindings are documented in the common file? > dwc3.txt is for dwc3.ko. We need separate files for rockchip, xilinx and > qualcomn :-) I have already prepared a new Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/rockchip,dwc3.txt, But considering that rockchip,dwc3.txt should contains phys node description which are not ready yet, so I don't add the dt-bindings patch here. Is it better to add the dt-bindings patch(rockchip,dwc3.txt) without phys node description here? If it is, I'll add rockchip,dwc3.txt next patch verison. And I have some doubts about the name format of the usb dwc3 documents. I notice that there are at least two types of name format: 1. dwc3-xx.txt (e.g. dwc3-st.txt ) 2. xx, dwc3.txt (e.g. qcom,dwc3.txt) Which one do you prefer? >