Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: qcom,snps-dwc3: Add support for firmware-managed resources

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 27/11/2025 11:31, Sriram Dash wrote:
> On Qualcomm automotive SoC sa8255p, platform resources like clocks,
> interconnect, resets, regulators and GDSC are configured remotely by
> firmware.
> 
> PM OPP is used to abstract these resources in firmware and SCMI perf
> protocol is used to request resource operations by using runtime PM
> framework APIs such as pm_runtime_get/put_sync to signal firmware
> for managing resources accordingly for respective perf levels.
> 
> "qcom,snps-dwc3-fw-managed" compatible helps determine if
> the device's resources are managed by firmware.
> Additionally, it makes the power-domains property mandatory
> and excludes the clocks property for the controller.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sriram Dash <sriram.dash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,snps-dwc3.yaml    | 173 +++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 111 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,snps-dwc3.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,snps-dwc3.yaml
> index 8cee7c5582f2..d2d1b42fbb07 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,snps-dwc3.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,snps-dwc3.yaml
> @@ -12,68 +12,65 @@ maintainers:
>  description:
>    Describes the Qualcomm USB block, based on Synopsys DWC3.
>  
> -select:
> -  properties:
> -    compatible:
> -      contains:
> -        const: qcom,snps-dwc3
> -  required:
> -    - compatible

I wonder why do you think dropping some code is fine...


> +      - items:
> +          - enum:
> +              - qcom,sa8255p-dwc3
> +          - const: qcom,snps-dwc3-fw-managed

No, you cannot keep coming with more generic compatibles.

If you want generic a compatible, you already have - qcom,snps-dwc3 -
and that "generic" part already said that everything is compatible with it.

Now you claim that existing generic compatible qcom,snps-dwc3 is not
generic enough and you need one more generic compatible.

Next year you will say that two generic compatibles are not generic
enough and you need third generic compatible.

In two years we will learn that three generic compatibles are not enough...

I think I was complaining on the lists a lot on this, so I am surprised
it is still coming back.

So no, you cannot claim that you need more generic compatibles because
one generic is not generic. NAK.


Best regards,
Krzysztof