diff mbox series

[5/5] ARM: dts: imx6qdl: Rename USB hub node name

Message ID 20240812143431.98323-6-Markus.Niebel@ew.tq-group.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series TQMa6x / MBa6x DT improvements | expand

Commit Message

Niebel, Markus Aug. 12, 2024, 2:34 p.m. UTC
From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>

According to microchip,usb2514.yaml the node name shall be usb-hub.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6qdl-mba6.dtsi | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Niebel, Markus Aug. 12, 2024, 3:13 p.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, 2024-08-12 at 16:34 +0200, Markus Niebel wrote:
> From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>
> 
> According to microchip,usb2514.yaml the node name shall be usb-hub.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>
> 

Sorry, i forgot my Signed-off-by. Will resend if needed

> ---
Best regards,
Markus
Krzysztof Kozlowski Aug. 13, 2024, 9:20 a.m. UTC | #2
On 12/08/2024 16:34, Markus Niebel wrote:
> From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>
> 
> According to microchip,usb2514.yaml the node name shall be usb-hub.

That's not true. The schema does not say anything like this. Old name is
correct. NAK.


Best regards,
Krzysztof
Alexander Stein Aug. 13, 2024, 9:27 a.m. UTC | #3
Am Dienstag, 13. August 2024, 11:20:08 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 12/08/2024 16:34, Markus Niebel wrote:
> > From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>
> > 
> > According to microchip,usb2514.yaml the node name shall be usb-hub.
> 
> That's not true. The schema does not say anything like this. Old name is
> correct. NAK.

So, is the schema incorrect? There is the dtbs_check warning:
arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6q-mba6b.dtb: hub@1: $nodename:0: 'hub@1' does not match '^usb(@.*)?'
        from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/usb/microchip,usb2514.yaml#

Best regards,
Alexander
Krzysztof Kozlowski Aug. 13, 2024, 9:44 a.m. UTC | #4
On 13/08/2024 11:27, Alexander Stein wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 13. August 2024, 11:20:08 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 12/08/2024 16:34, Markus Niebel wrote:
>>> From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>
>>>
>>> According to microchip,usb2514.yaml the node name shall be usb-hub.
>>
>> That's not true. The schema does not say anything like this. Old name is
>> correct. NAK.
> 
> So, is the schema incorrect? There is the dtbs_check warning:
> arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6q-mba6b.dtb: hub@1: $nodename:0: 'hub@1' does not match '^usb(@.*)?'
>         from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/usb/microchip,usb2514.yaml#

If you have a warning, shorten it and paste it so this will be obvious.
If you look at several bindings, the hub is widely used name. I think
the schema is not correct here - I do not see any properties from
usb.yaml being used here (for usb2514). What's more, if you compare
usb2514 with any other on-board HUB representations (because that's the
only point why we have it in bindings, right?), none of them reference
usb(-hcd)?.yaml.

These are not USB controllers, IMO.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Alexander Stein Aug. 13, 2024, 11:02 a.m. UTC | #5
Am Dienstag, 13. August 2024, 11:44:28 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 13/08/2024 11:27, Alexander Stein wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 13. August 2024, 11:20:08 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> >> On 12/08/2024 16:34, Markus Niebel wrote:
> >>> From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>
> >>>
> >>> According to microchip,usb2514.yaml the node name shall be usb-hub.
> >>
> >> That's not true. The schema does not say anything like this. Old name is
> >> correct. NAK.
> > 
> > So, is the schema incorrect? There is the dtbs_check warning:
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6q-mba6b.dtb: hub@1: $nodename:0: 'hub@1' does not match '^usb(@.*)?'
> >         from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/usb/microchip,usb2514.yaml#
> 
> If you have a warning, shorten it and paste it so this will be obvious.
> If you look at several bindings, the hub is widely used name. I think
> the schema is not correct here - I do not see any properties from
> usb.yaml being used here (for usb2514). What's more, if you compare
> usb2514 with any other on-board HUB representations (because that's the
> only point why we have it in bindings, right?), none of them reference
> usb(-hcd)?.yaml.
> 
> These are not USB controllers, IMO.

I raised that concern in [1] already, but nobody commented.

Best regards,
Alexander

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/3633627.mvXUDI8C0e@steina-w/
Niebel, Markus Aug. 13, 2024, 1:13 p.m. UTC | #6
On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 13:02 +0200, Alexander Stein wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 13. August 2024, 11:44:28 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> > On 13/08/2024 11:27, Alexander Stein wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 13. August 2024, 11:20:08 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> > > > On 12/08/2024 16:34, Markus Niebel wrote:
> > > > > From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > According to microchip,usb2514.yaml the node name shall be usb-hub.
> > > > 
> > > > That's not true. The schema does not say anything like this. Old name is
> > > > correct. NAK.
> > > 
> > > So, is the schema incorrect? There is the dtbs_check warning:
> > > arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6q-mba6b.dtb: hub@1: $nodename:0: 'hub@1' does not match '^usb(@.*)?'
> > >         from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/usb/microchip,usb2514.yaml#
> > 
> > If you have a warning, shorten it and paste it so this will be obvious.
> > If you look at several bindings, the hub is widely used name. I think
> > the schema is not correct here - I do not see any properties from
> > usb.yaml being used here (for usb2514). What's more, if you compare
> > usb2514 with any other on-board HUB representations (because that's the
> > only point why we have it in bindings, right?), none of them reference
> > usb(-hcd)?.yaml.
> > 
> > These are not USB controllers, IMO.
> 
> I raised that concern in [1] already, but nobody commented.
> 

Besides that, current version of device tree specification [1], section
'2.2.2 Generic Names Recommendation' exlicitely suggests 'usb-hub' but
not 'hub'

See
https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/tag/v0.4

> Best regards,
> Alexander
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/3633627.mvXUDI8C0e@steina-w/

Best regards,
Markus

-- 
TQ-Systems GmbH | Mühlstraße 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany
Amtsgericht München, HRB 105018
Geschäftsführer: Detlef Schneider, Rüdiger Stahl, Stefan Schneider
http://www.tq-group.com/
Krzysztof Kozlowski Aug. 13, 2024, 4:13 p.m. UTC | #7
On 13/08/2024 13:02, Alexander Stein wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 13. August 2024, 11:44:28 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 13/08/2024 11:27, Alexander Stein wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 13. August 2024, 11:20:08 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>>>> On 12/08/2024 16:34, Markus Niebel wrote:
>>>>> From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to microchip,usb2514.yaml the node name shall be usb-hub.
>>>>
>>>> That's not true. The schema does not say anything like this. Old name is
>>>> correct. NAK.
>>>
>>> So, is the schema incorrect? There is the dtbs_check warning:
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6q-mba6b.dtb: hub@1: $nodename:0: 'hub@1' does not match '^usb(@.*)?'
>>>         from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/usb/microchip,usb2514.yaml#
>>
>> If you have a warning, shorten it and paste it so this will be obvious.
>> If you look at several bindings, the hub is widely used name. I think
>> the schema is not correct here - I do not see any properties from
>> usb.yaml being used here (for usb2514). What's more, if you compare
>> usb2514 with any other on-board HUB representations (because that's the
>> only point why we have it in bindings, right?), none of them reference
>> usb(-hcd)?.yaml.
>>
>> These are not USB controllers, IMO.
> 
> I raised that concern in [1] already, but nobody commented.

With 200 new emails in my inbox every day, I bet I miss many threads...

The nodes could be named usb-hub, makes sense, but:
1. Several bindings examples have hub, so we would need to correct all
of them for consistency?

2. For me hub is generic and obvious enough. Just like "phy", even
though DT spec has "usb-phy".

3. Renaming nodes to fix issues is very good. Renaming just to make
things more readable is also good or because coding style asks for it.
Renaming just because one person likes hub, other likes usb-hub, so just
personal preference, is for me churn. Considering it sometimes breaks
some users (it is not ABI... till it is), personal preference is poor
reason.

I think the schema should be fixed, because this is not an USB
controller, in terms how we call things which are "USB controllers". On
the bus it is USB device and USB hub. For USB device we have schema. For
USB hub we don't, so it does not matter.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6qdl-mba6.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6qdl-mba6.dtsi
index 60aa1e947f62..d03f7065ddfd 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6qdl-mba6.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx6qdl-mba6.dtsi
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@  &usbh1 {
 	#address-cells = <1>;
 	#size-cells = <0>;
 
-	hub@1 {
+	usb-hub@1 {
 		compatible = "usb424,2517";
 		reg = <1>;
 		#address-cells = <1>;