lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: arm64: bcmbca: Merge BCM4908 into BCMBCA
On 2022-07-13 02:57, William Zhang wrote:
> On 7/12/22 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 19:37, William Zhang wrote:
>>>>> + - description: BCM4908 Family based boards
>>>>> + items:
>>>>> + - enum:
>>>>> + # BCM4908 SoC based boards
>>>>> + - brcm,bcm94908
>>>>> + - asus,gt-ac5300
>>>>> + - netgear,raxe500
>>>>> + # BCM4906 SoC based boards
>>>>> + - brcm,bcm94906
>>>>> + - netgear,r8000p
>>>>> + - tplink,archer-c2300-v1
>>>>> + - enum:
>>>>> + - brcm,bcm4908
>>>>> + - brcm,bcm4906
>>>>> + - brcm,bcm49408
>>>>
>>>> This is wrong. brcm,bcm94908 followed by brcm,bcm4906 does not look
>>>> like valid list of compatibles.
>>>>
>>> For 4908 board variant, it will need to be followed by 4908 chip.
>>> Sorry
>>> for the basic question but is there any requirement to enforce this
>>> kind
>>> of rule? I would assume dts writer know what he/she is doing and
>>> select
>>> the right combination.
>>
>> The entire point of DT schema is to validate DTS. Combination like
>> above
>> prevents that goal.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
> Understand the DT schema purpose. But items property allows multiple
> enums in the list which gives a lot of flexibility but make it hard to
> validate. I am not familiar with DT schema, is there any directive to
> specify one enum value depending on another so dts validation tool can
> report error if combination is wrong?
>
> This is our preferred format of all bcmbca compatible string
> especially when we could have more than 10 chip variants for the same
> chip family and we really want to work on the chip family id. We will
> make sure they are in the right combination in our own patch and patch
> from other contributors. Would this work? If not, I will probably have
> to revert the change of 4908(maybe append brcm,bcmbca as this chip
> belongs to the same bca group) and use "enum board variant", "const
> main chip id", "brcm,bca" for all other chips as our secondary choice.

I'm not sure why I didn't even receive 1/3 and half of discussion
e-mails.

You can't just put all strings into a single bag and allow mixing them
in any combos. Please check how it's properly handled in the current
existing binding:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,bcm4908.yaml

Above binding enforces that non-matching compatible strings are not used
together.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-13 12:59    [W:1.033 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site