Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: Introduce samsung,snps-dwc3

[Selvarasu Ganesan]

On 9/18/2026 7:25 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/09/2026 15:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/09/2026 15:36, Selvarasu Ganesan wrote:
>>
>>> As seen in samsung,exynos-dwc3.yaml, our existing bindings already
>>> support multiple SoCs with diverse clock requirements within a single
>>> file. Similarly, we plan to use a single flattened Samsung binding to
>>> manage these diverse clock requirements. for different SoCs.
>>>
>>> Regarding the migration for current and future SoCs, would you prefer,
>> I do not understand how any of this is relevant to my review comment.
>>
>>> Option A: A single flattened binding file using a common fallback
>>> compatible string (instead of samsung,snps-dwc3) to minimize
>>> of_match_table entries, and if/then constraints to handle diverse clock
>>> requirements.
>>> Option B: Separate binding files for each individual SoCs.
>>>
>>> Could you please let us know your preferred approach? Once confirmed, we
>>> will address your other review comments based on the selected approach.
>> You do not have other bindings. You have one device. If you have more,
>> then post more. We are not making reviews based on imaginary future things.
> OK, I guess you referred to my further comments about if:then: block
> here. When you have more devices, you can add them to the same binding,
> with proper constraints for each variant.
>
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=9ebe79fc-ff356cca-9ebff2b3-74fe485fffe0-0d2d81d841babdca&q=1&e=60d36b7b-e65b-4d92-9fe0-f943564aaf66&u=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Fv7.3-rc3%2Fsource%2FDocumentation%2Fdevicetree%2Fbindings%2Fclock%2Fsamsung%2Cexynos990-clock.yaml%23L93
>
> If the difference is only in clocks, one binding file is usually good to
> hold many variants. If there are more differences, things are getting
> too messy and more files are useful (see commit
> c80dc8121d3af8f33413bb0f9ed9e81e2c576e1a for example).


Thanks for your reference.


Since the differences between the Exynos SoCs with USB DWc3 are 
primarily their clock requirements, We will keep the one binding file 
and add Exynos8855 SoC now and extend the same binding with per 
compatible clock constraints when others are migrated.

As we mentioned in our previous comment, we would appreciate your 
guidance on the naming convention for a binding file that supports 
multiple SoCs for flattened support , similar to how 
samsung,exynos-dwc3.yaml is structured.

should we use a common binding filename for the flattened representation 
(Example: samsung,exynos-dwc3-flattened.yaml)?


Thanks,
Selva
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof