-----Original Message----- From: Ivan Vecera <ivec...@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday 10 April 2025 14:36 To: Conor Dooley <co...@kernel.org>; Prathosh Satish - M66066 <prathosh.sat...@microchip.com> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@kernel.org>; net...@vger.kernel.org; Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedore...@linux.dev>; Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalew...@intel.com>; Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us>; Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk...@kernel.org>; Conor Dooley <conor...@kernel.org>; Prathosh Satish - M66066 <prathosh.sat...@microchip.com>; Lee Jones <l...@kernel.org>; Kees Cook <k...@kernel.org>; Andy Shevchenko <a...@kernel.org>; Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>; Michal Schmidt <mschm...@redhat.com>; devicet...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org 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 <ivec...@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> .../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 <ivec...@redhat.com> >>>> + >>>> +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.
