Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:50:09 +0200 | From | Rafał Miłecki <> | 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.
| |