Re: [PATCH 4/5] ARM: dts: microchip: Rename the usb node

[<Andrei.Simion@microchip.com>]

Hi,

On 14.08.2024 16:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 14/08/2024 14:26, Andrei Simion wrote:
>> Rename the usb node according to devicetree
>> specification and update the label according
>> with the node-specific standard as: ohci, ehci
>> or gadget.
> 
> Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
> process (neither too early nor over the limit):
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
> 
> ...
> 

In V2 I will wrap the commit message according to Linux coding style / submission process

> 
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/aks-cdu.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/aks-cdu.dts
>> index 742fcf525e1b..52e166c8a365 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/aks-cdu.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/aks-cdu.dts
>> @@ -50,13 +50,13 @@ macb0: ethernet@fffc4000 {
>>                               status = "okay";
>>                       };
>>
>> -                     usb1: gadget@fffa4000 {
>> +                     gadget: usb@fffa4000 {
>>                               atmel,vbus-gpio = <&pioC 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>                               status = "okay";
>>                       };
>>               };
>>
>> -             usb0: ohci@500000 {
>> +             ohci: usb@500000 {
> 
> I don't think that these label renames are correct.
> 

I checked in other dts dtsi (other silicon vendors) the USB node 
and it uses ohci, ehci, gadget, etc as a label.  Also, I verified the
address in the datasheet and they are correctly labeled (meant that 
they were: usb gadget, usb ohci, usb ehci)

From what point of view is it not correct?
I would like to know so I can do it right


>>                       num-ports = <2>;
>>                       status = "okay";
>>               };
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/animeo_ip.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/animeo_ip.dts
>> index 29936bfbeeb7..911c8d9ee013 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/animeo_ip.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/animeo_ip.dts
>> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ ubi@60000 {
>>                       };
>>               };
>>
>> -             usb0: ohci@500000 {
>> +             ohci: usb@500000 {
>>                       num-ports = <2>;
>>                       atmel,vbus-gpio = <&pioB 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>>                       status = "okay";
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/at91-ariag25.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/at91-ariag25.dts
>> index 713d18f80356..fedcf30a924e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/at91-ariag25.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/at91-ariag25.dts
>> @@ -173,11 +173,11 @@ &usart3 {
>>       status = "okay";
>>  };
>>
>> -&usb0 {
>> +&ohci {
>>       status = "okay";
>>       num-ports = <3>;
>>  };
>>
>> -&usb1 {
>> +&ehci {
>>       status = "okay";
>>  };
> 
> And how now the sorting works? I don't get the point of it. What is
> exactly wrong in the label that justifies the code reshuffling.
> 

The point is to be easy to determine what kind of standard 
represents/implements the usb node.

> BTW, is this some sort of v2? If so, provide changelog and properly
> version your patches.
> 

It was a new series and from now on there will be v2

BR,
Andrei Simion

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>