On 2022-07-21 09:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 21/07/2022 08:51, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 2022-07-21 08:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 21/07/2022 02:06, William Zhang wrote:
Append "brcm,bcmbca" to BCM4908 chip family compatible strings. Add
generic 4908 board entry.
This does not explain at all why you are doing it. Improve your
commit
messages.
To clarify it from my side (and maybe help a bit):
1. As I understand it BCMBCA is a one big family of SoCs.
2. BCM4908 is a subset of that family (a subfamily?) designed for a
specific group of devices.
If that's correct I think William it's what you should describe in
your
commit message. That would make binding more accurate and should be a
good argument for your change (I believe).
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.
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
