Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: bluetooth: broadcom: add BCM43752

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2215 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 06:57:17PM +0200, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2026, at 14:04, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 01:32:18PM +0200, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2026, at 21:17, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2026 at 11:55:00AM +0200, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> >> >> Document the compatible string for BCM43752.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Hugo Osvaldo Barrera <hugo@whynothugo.nl>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml        | 1 +
> >> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >> >> 
> >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml
> >> >> index 95501e858e6f..04e8a968548d 100644
> >> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml
> >> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml
> >> >> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ properties:
> >> >>            - brcm,bcm43438-bt
> >> >>            - brcm,bcm4345c5
> >> >>            - brcm,bcm43540-bt
> >> >> +          - brcm,bcm43752-bt
> >> >
> >> > This new compatible uses no match data. Why is a fallback compatible not
> >> > suitable?
> >> >
> >> 
> >> I wasn't aware that this was the preferred approach.
> >> 
> >> I used `compatible = "brcm,bcm43752-bt", "brcm,bcm43430a0-bt";`
> >> in my DT and Bluetooth works equally well. Both of these patches
> >> can be ignored, thanks for the review.
> >
> > You still need to add a binding patch to document the new compatible,
> > just it will permit the fallback.
> >
> 
> Right, CHECK_DTBS=y fails without that change.
> So the second patch (which changes brcm,bluetooth.yaml) should be merged,
> but not the other one is unnecessary and can be ignored.
> 
> I don't need to re-submit the second path independently, it's fine to
> just merge one patch and ignore the other, right?

You need to submit a v2 of this patch, because the compatible setup you
tested and pasted above is not permitted by the current binding. The
driver patch becomes redundant.

Thanks,
Conor

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]