Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: wireless: restore constraint for brcm,bcm4329-fmac compatible property

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 20/08/2024 13:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:12:15PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> When extending the bindings for Apple PCIe devices the compatible property
>> specification was changed. However, it was changed such that for these
>> devices it was no longer necessary to have "brcm,bcm4329-fmac" listed as
>> string in the compatible list property as it was before that extension.
> 
> Apart that this was never tested... That statement is not true. Look at
> "fixed" commit - it is not doing like that at all.
> 
> I don't understand the reasoning.
> 
>> This patch restores that constraint.
>>
>> Fixes: e2e37224e8b3 ("dt-bindings: net: bcm4329-fmac: Add Apple properties & chips")
>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
>> ---
>>  .../net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml       | 19 ++++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml
>> index e564f20d8f41..47f90446322f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml
>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>  title: Broadcom BCM4329 family fullmac wireless SDIO/PCIE devices
>>  
>>  maintainers:
>> -  - Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>
>> +  - Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
>>  
>>  description:
>>    The Broadcom Single chip MAC part for the BCM4329 family and
>> @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ properties:
>>                - brcm,bcm4341b0-fmac
>>                - brcm,bcm4341b4-fmac
>>                - brcm,bcm4341b5-fmac
>> -              - brcm,bcm4329-fmac
>>                - brcm,bcm4330-fmac
>>                - brcm,bcm4334-fmac
>>                - brcm,bcm43340-fmac
>> @@ -46,13 +45,15 @@ properties:
>>                - cypress,cyw43012-fmac
>>                - infineon,cyw43439-fmac
>>            - const: brcm,bcm4329-fmac
>> -      - enum:
>> -          - brcm,bcm4329-fmac
>> -          - pci14e4,43dc  # BCM4355
>> -          - pci14e4,4464  # BCM4364
>> -          - pci14e4,4488  # BCM4377
>> -          - pci14e4,4425  # BCM4378
>> -          - pci14e4,4433  # BCM4387
>> +    - items:
>> +          - enum:
>> +              - pci14e4,43dc  # BCM4355
>> +              - pci14e4,4464  # BCM4364
>> +              - pci14e4,4488  # BCM4377
>> +              - pci14e4,4425  # BCM4378
>> +              - pci14e4,4433  # BCM4387
>> +          - const: brcm,bcm4329-fmac
>> +    - const: brcm,bcm4329-fmac
> 
> And this does not make sense... You claim that some constrained was
> droppped and you re-add it, but in fact you still add the same code as
> it was before.
> 
> NAK.

Ah, the last "const" actually makes sense, I missed that.

Commit still however lacks rationale why these devices are compatible.
Plus existing rationale that e2e37224e8b3 changed something is entirely
WRONG. It changed nothing. ZERO. It only added new devices, which was
claimed are not compatible with brcm,bcm4329-fmac.

Now if you claim that original commit which said "these devices are not
compatible with brcm,bcm4329-fmac", then please provide arguments, not
just say "other commit did something". It did nothing...

Best regards,
Krzysztof