On 7/13/22 03:50, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 2022-07-13 02:57, William Zhang wrote:
On 7/12/22 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 12/07/2022 19:37, William Zhang wrote:
+ - description: BCM4908 Family based boards
+ items:
+ - enum:
+ # BCM4908 SoC based boards
+ - brcm,bcm94908
+ - asus,gt-ac5300
+ - netgear,raxe500
+ # BCM4906 SoC based boards
+ - brcm,bcm94906
+ - netgear,r8000p
+ - tplink,archer-c2300-v1
+ - enum:
+ - brcm,bcm4908
+ - brcm,bcm4906
+ - brcm,bcm49408
This is wrong. brcm,bcm94908 followed by brcm,bcm4906 does not look
like valid list of compatibles.
For 4908 board variant, it will need to be followed by 4908 chip. Sorry
for the basic question but is there any requirement to enforce this
kind
of rule? I would assume dts writer know what he/she is doing and
select
the right combination.
The entire point of DT schema is to validate DTS. Combination like above
prevents that goal.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Understand the DT schema purpose. But items property allows multiple
enums in the list which gives a lot of flexibility but make it hard to
validate. I am not familiar with DT schema, is there any directive to
specify one enum value depending on another so dts validation tool can
report error if combination is wrong?
This is our preferred format of all bcmbca compatible string
especially when we could have more than 10 chip variants for the same
chip family and we really want to work on the chip family id. We will
make sure they are in the right combination in our own patch and patch
from other contributors. Would this work? If not, I will probably have
to revert the change of 4908(maybe append brcm,bcmbca as this chip
belongs to the same bca group) and use "enum board variant", "const
main chip id", "brcm,bca" for all other chips as our secondary choice.
I'm not sure why I didn't even receive 1/3 and half of discussion
e-mails.
You are copied on all 4 emails (including cover letter).
--
Florian
