Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip,inno-usb2phy: add rk3576

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 25/09/2024 04:09, Frank Wang wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
> On 2024/9/25 0:11, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 04:55:09PM +0800, Frank Wang wrote:
>>> From: Frank Wang <frank.wang@rock-chips.com>
>>>
>>> Add compatible for the USB2 phy in the Rockchip RK3576 SoC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Wang <frank.wang@rock-chips.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changelog:
>>> v2:
>>>   - Categorize clock names by oneOf keyword.
>>>
>>> v1:
>>>   - https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-phy/patch/20240923025326.10467-1-frank.wang@rock-chips.com/
>>>
>>>   .../bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml      | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml
>>> index 5254413137c64..8af4e0f8637fc 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml
>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ properties:
>>>         - rockchip,rk3366-usb2phy
>>>         - rockchip,rk3399-usb2phy
>>>         - rockchip,rk3568-usb2phy
>>> +      - rockchip,rk3576-usb2phy
>>>         - rockchip,rk3588-usb2phy
>>>         - rockchip,rv1108-usb2phy
>>>   
>>> @@ -34,10 +35,20 @@ properties:
>>>       const: 0
>>>   
>>>     clocks:
>>> -    maxItems: 1
>>> +    minItems: 1
>>> +    maxItems: 3
>>>   
>>>     clock-names:
>>> -    const: phyclk
>>> +    minItems: 1
>>> +    maxItems: 3
>> clock-names isn't a required property, you can't allow jumbling the order
>> like this does without breaking the ABI. Why can't the new device have
>> phyclk in position 1?
> 
> I sent a draft changes in patch v1 comments which put the "phyclk" in 

No, you did not. You sent buggy code which was never tested.

> position 1, Krzysztof said I have messed the order, so I reorder them in v2.

No, I did not. I said your current code (from your reply or patch v2)
messes the order. Even though I sent you reply that this code is wrong,
you still decided to ignore my feedback and send it.

To be clear:
NAK

> Did I misunderstand? anyway, should the changes like the below?

Read all the answers again instead of putting wrong words to wrong patches.


Best regards,
Krzysztof