RE: [PATCH v2 3/6] dt-bindings: phy: mxs-usb-phy: add nxp,sim property

Peng Fan
2024-07-29T06:27:07Z

> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] dt-bindings: phy: mxs-usb-phy: add
> nxp,sim property
>
> On 29/07/2024 03:03, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 3/6] dt-bindings: phy: mxs-usb-phy: add nxp,sim
> >> property
> >>
> >> i.MX7ULP need properly set System Integration Module(SIM)
> module to
> >> make usb wakeup work well. This will add a "nxp,sim" property.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@nxp.com>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Changes in v2:
> >> - add else branch suggested by Rob
> >> ---
> >> .../devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,mxs-usbphy.yaml | 17
> >> +++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,mxs-
> >> usbphy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,mxs-
> >> usbphy.yaml
> >> index f4b1ca2fb562..ce665a2779b7 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,mxs-usbphy.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/fsl,mxs-
> usbphy.yaml
> >> @@ -87,6 +87,12 @@ properties:
> >> maximum: 119
> >> default: 100
> >>
> >> + nxp,sim:
> >
> > "nxp,imx7ulp-sim" should be better. SIM is specific to i.MX7ULP as of
> now.
>
> Can you guarantee that? IOW, if you ever, ever come with another
> "sim"
> property for another SoC NXP agrees that it will be rejected?

I could not judge here. I was thinking, vendor,soc-ip is the preferred
property.
>
> Properties should be defined once and naming such per-soc kind of
> contradicts it.

It is fine to keep nxp,sim as what the patch did.

Regards,
Peng.

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof