From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA516C433EF for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 07:50:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230085AbiGUHu0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 03:50:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57478 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229672AbiGUHuZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 03:50:25 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 2560 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at lindbergh.monkeyblade.net; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 00:50:24 PDT Received: from 10.mo581.mail-out.ovh.net (10.mo581.mail-out.ovh.net [178.33.250.56]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 467D33DF2C for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 00:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from player761.ha.ovh.net (unknown [10.111.172.186]) by mo581.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE822464F for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 07:50:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RCM-web2.webmail.mail.ovh.net (ip-194-187-74-233.konfederacka.maverick.com.pl [194.187.74.233]) (Authenticated sender: rafal@milecki.pl) by player761.ha.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 292062CD894E0; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 07:50:09 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:50:09 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: William Zhang , Linux ARM List , joel.peshkin@broadcom.com, dan.beygelman@broadcom.com, Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Anand Gore , Kursad Oney , Florian Fainelli , Broadcom internal kernel review list , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , open list Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/9] dt-bindings: arm64: bcmbca: Update BCM4908 description In-Reply-To: References: <20220721000658.29537-1-william.zhang@broadcom.com> <883c2ad4c36220b488519a8902ad72bc@milecki.pl> <193845cb-6149-1ae6-5eb6-6b01ffcf763b@linaro.org> <4b5100e4a6e9e581f4b8ab58e5ca4927@milecki.pl> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.13 Message-ID: <1d39bbba3f267086eb2884ffcbf4807b@milecki.pl> X-Sender: rafal@milecki.pl X-Originating-IP: 194.187.74.233 X-Webmail-UserID: rafal@milecki.pl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 377739420184194011 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrudelkedgvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuqfggjfdpvefjgfevmfevgfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecuhedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepggffhffvvefujghffgfkgihitgfgsehtkehjtddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpeftrghfrghlpgfoihhlvggtkhhiuceorhgrfhgrlhesmhhilhgvtghkihdrphhlqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegheefkeffffelvdfflefhfefhgeffleeihfdvgeehvdeuhfehueetteelkeevffenucffohhmrghinhepkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgnecukfhppedtrddtrddtrddtpdduleegrddukeejrdejgedrvdeffeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhhvghlohepphhlrgihvghrjeeiuddrhhgrrdhovhhhrdhnvghtpdhinhgvtheptddrtddrtddrtddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehrrghfrghlsehmihhlvggtkhhirdhplhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopeguvghvihgtvghtrhgvvgesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdpoffvtefjohhsthepmhhoheekud Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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.