Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: serial: add Broadcom's BCMBCA family High Speed UART

["Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>]

On 22.11.2023 16:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/11/2023 16:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> For example a year ago I added binding for BCMBCA SoC timer without
>>>> actual driver, see e112f2de151b ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Broadcom's
>>>> BCMBCA timers").
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if we're going to agree on this, but personally I like
>>>> describing hardware as much as I can. So it's well documented /
>>>> understood and people may eventually write drivers for it. Maybe it's
>>>> partially because I come from Broadcom's world that isn't well known
>>>> for upstream efforts in general.
>>>
>>> The problem is that "brcm,bcmbca-hs-uart" is not describing hardware. It
>>> is saying that all these devices have similar (compatible) programming
>>> model, so the OS can use just one compatible. This goes away from pure
>>> hardware description into interpretation.
>>>
>>> Rob already commented on such non-SoC compatibles multiple times. I do
>>> not see any reason here to not use specific compatible as fallback.
>>
>> Do I get it right we should rather have some base specific compatible
>> like: "brcm,bcm63138-hs-uart" and then if anything use fallback to it
>> like: "brcm,bcm4908-hs-uart", "brcm,bcm63138-hs-uart"; ?
> 
> Yes, or the other way around, depends which is probably the oldest.

Thank you for helping me on that!