[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1d39bbba3f267086eb2884ffcbf4807b@milecki.pl>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:50:09 +0200
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: William Zhang <william.zhang@...adcom.com>,
Linux ARM List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
joel.peshkin@...adcom.com, dan.beygelman@...adcom.com,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Anand Gore <anand.gore@...adcom.com>,
Kursad Oney <kursad.oney@...adcom.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/9] dt-bindings: arm64: bcmbca: Update BCM4908
description
On 2022-07-21 09:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/07/2022 09:13, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>> That's better argument. But what's the benefit of adding generic
>>> compatible? Devices cannot bind to it (it is too generic). Does it
>>> describe the device anyhow? Imagine someone adding compatible
>>> "brcm,all-soc-of-broadcom" - does it make any sense?
>>
>> OK, I see it now. I can't think of any case of handling all devices
>> covered with suc a wide brcm,bcmbca binding.
>
> Maybe there is some common part of a SoC which that generic compatible
> would express?
>
> Most archs don't use soc-wide generic compatible, because of reasons I
> mentioned - no actual benefits for anyone from such compatible.
>
> But there are exceptions. I fouun socfpga and apple. The apple sounds
> as
> mistake to me, because the generic "apple,arm-platform" compatible
> looks
> like covering all possible Apple ARM platforms. I think Apple ARM
> designs in 20 years will not be compatible at all with current design,
> so such broad compatible is not useful... but that's only my opinion.
Let's see if William / Broadcom guys can provide a valid argument for
the brcm,bcmbca.
>> This leads me to another question if we should actually totally drop
>> brcm,bcmbca from other SoCs bindings, see linux-next's
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,bcmbca.yaml
>
> This would be tricky as it was already accepted, unless all sit in
> linux-next and did not make to v5.19-rc1.
5.19-rc7 has only 1 case with brcm,bcmbca, see ff6992735ade7
("Linux 5.19-rc7"):
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,bcmbca.yaml?id=ff6992735ade75aae3e35d16b17da1008d753d28
So we can still clean it up for the 5.20-rc1 or 5.20-rc2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists