RE: [PATCH v2 02/14] dt-bindings: dpll: Add support for Microchip Azurite chip family

[Prathosh.Satish]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Thursday 10 April 2025 14:36
To: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx>; Prathosh Satish - M66066 <Prathosh.Satish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@xxxxxxxxx>; Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@xxxxxxxxx>; Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Prathosh Satish - M66066 <Prathosh.Satish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx>; Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] dt-bindings: dpll: Add support for Microchip Azurite chip family

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe

On 10. 04. 25 3:18 odp., Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 09:45:47AM +0200, Ivan Vecera wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10. 04. 25 9:06 dop., Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 04:42:38PM GMT, Ivan Vecera wrote:
>>>> Add DT bindings for Microchip Azurite DPLL chip family. These chips 
>>>> provides 2 independent DPLL channels, up to 10 differential or 
>>>> single-ended inputs and up to 20 differential or 20 single-ended outputs.
>>>> It can be connected via I2C or SPI busses.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x-i2c.yaml  | 74 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    .../bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x-spi.yaml  | 77 
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> No, you do not get two files. No such bindings were accepted since 
>>> some years.
>>>
>>>>    2 files changed, 151 insertions(+)
>>>>    create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x-i2c.yaml
>>>>    create mode 100644 
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x-spi.yaml
>>>>
>>>> diff --git 
>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x-i2c.yaml 
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x-i2c.yaml
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000000000..d9280988f9eb7
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x-i2c.
>>>> +++ yaml
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2
>>>> +---
>>>> +$id: 
>>>> +http://devicetree.org/schemas/dpll/microchip,zl3073x-i2c.yaml#
>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>> +
>>>> +title: I2C-attached Microchip Azurite DPLL device
>>>> +
>>>> +maintainers:
>>>> +  - Ivan Vecera <ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> +
>>>> +description:
>>>> +  Microchip Azurite DPLL (ZL3073x) is a family of DPLL devices 
>>>> +that
>>>> +  provides 2 independent DPLL channels, up to 10 differential or
>>>> +  single-ended inputs and up to 20 differential or 20 single-ended outputs.
>>>> +  It can be connected via multiple busses, one of them being I2C.
>>>> +
>>>> +properties:
>>>> +  compatible:
>>>> +    enum:
>>>> +      - microchip,zl3073x-i2c
>>>
>>> I already said: you have one compatible, not two. One.
>>
>> Ah, you mean something like:
>> iio/accel/adi,adxl313.yaml
>>
>> Do you?
>>
>>> Also, still wildcard, so still a no.
>>
>> This is not wildcard, Microchip uses this to designate DPLL devices 
>> with the same characteristics.
>
> That's the very definition of a wildcard, no? The x is matching 
> against several different devices. There's like 14 different parts 
> matching zl3073x, with varying numbers of outputs and channels. One 
> compatible for all of that hardly seems suitable.

Prathosh, could you please bring more light on this?

> Just to clarify, the original driver was written specifically with 2-channel 
> chips in mind (ZL30732) with 10 input and 20 outputs, which led to some confusion of using zl3073x as compatible.
> However, the final version of the driver will support the entire ZL3073x family 
> ZL30731 to ZL30735 and some subset of ZL30732 like ZL80732 etc 
> ensuring compatibility across all variants.


Thanks.
>
>>
>> But I can use microchip,azurite, is it more appropriate?
>
> No, I think that is worse actually.