Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: usb: typec-tcpci: add tcpci compatible binding

From: Marco Felsch
Date: Wed Feb 07 2024 - 05:09:14 EST


On 24-02-07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 10:05, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > On 24-02-06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2024 15:52, Marco Felsch wrote:
> >>> On 24-02-06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 05/02/2024 17:43, Marco Felsch wrote:
> >>>>> This binding descripes the generic TCPCI specification [1]. So add the

..

> > Don't get me wrong, I get your point. In the end I don't care and can
> > copy'n'paste the whole file and change the compatible to the OnSemi
> > device or I can add the dedicated OnSemi compatible to this file. But I
> > don't wanted to add an 2nd specific compatible while the device already
> > supports the generic one but via i2c_device_id.name. Therefore I aligned
> > the i2c_device_id with the of_device_id.
>
> You can add generic compatible used as fallback. That's pretty common
> practice.

Okay. To bring this discussion to an end, I will add the generic
compatible as fallback :)

Thanks,
Marco

>
> >
> >>>> Are all details expected to follow spec, without need of quirks?
> >>>
> >>> Please see above, I hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Sorry, doesn't. You still speak about driver and how it can bind to
> >> something. I did not ask about this at all.
> >>
> >> To be clear:
> >> WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LINUX DRIVER.
> >
> > I KNOW
> >
> >> We talk about hardware and how it is represented in Devicetree,
> >> including its supplies, pins, GPIOs and any ideas hardware engineers
> >> like to bring.
>
> Then terms "driver" and "binding" (or matching) do not fit here as
> arguments whether specific compatible should be there or not. There is
> guideline for that: writing bindings, which exactly, 100% covers this
> thing here.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>