Re: [PATCH 5/5] bindings: remove unused binding from old Libra version

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: missing ABI removal rationale in commit message
--

commit 59deabe3729dc9f9716dfd3c6cfdb69f11310abd
Author: Benjamin Hahn <B.Hahn@phytec.de>

bindings: remove unused binding from old Libra version

This commit removes the PHYTEC i.MX 95 FPSC board and SoM compatible entries
from the Freescale/NXP arm devicetree binding schema.

>     bindings: remove unused binding from old Libra version
>     
>     Remove unused devicetree binding from old Libra board version.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Benjamin Hahn <B.Hahn@phytec.de>
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
> index f917ae7202e96..dec6e22719b5d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
> @@ -1544,13 +1544,6 @@ properties:
>                - fsl,imx952-evk            # i.MX952 EVK Board
>            - const: fsl,imx952
>  
> -      - description: PHYTEC i.MX 95 FPSC based Boards
> -        items:
> -          - enum:
> -              - phytec,imx95-libra-rdk-fpsc   # Libra-i.MX 95 FPSC
> -          - const: phytec,imx95-phycore-fpsc  # phyCORE-i.MX 95 FPSC
> -          - const: fsl,imx95
> -
>        - description: PHYTEC phyFLEX-i.MX95 FPSC-Gamma SoM based boards
>          items:
>            - enum:

[Severity: Medium]
This isn't a bug in the schema syntax, but since devicetree bindings form an
external ABI (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ABI.rst and
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst section I.9), is
being unused in the kernel tree sufficient justification on its own for
removing phytec,imx95-libra-rdk-fpsc and phytec,imx95-phycore-fpsc from
properties.compatible in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml?

The current commit message only restates the subject line without explaining
why breaking or removing this binding ABI is acceptable. In the companion DTS
commits 4a096b093cf5 ("dts: imx95-libra-rdk-fpsc: remove devicetree for old
Libra") and 01cb871eca78, it is explained that the old baseboard (1618.0) and
SoM (1620.1) were alpha-only hardware based on i.MX95 silicon revision A1 that
are no longer available, built, or supported, and have been superseded by
hardware revisions 1618.2 and 1620.3 using phytec,imx95-phyflex-libra-rdk and
phytec,imx95-phyflex-fpsc-g.

Because devicetree binding patches and DTS patches are often reviewed and
applied through separate trees, could the commit message be expanded to
include this hardware rationale, mention both the i.MX95 SoC family context
(as fsl.yaml also documents phytec,imx8mp-libra-rdk-fpsc) and the removed
phytec,imx95-phycore-fpsc SoM compatible, and use the standard
"dt-bindings: arm: fsl:" subject prefix?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261030-wip-bhahn-imx95_upstreaming-v1-0-1c1cebb5be99@phytec.de?part=5