On 21/07/2022 09:13, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> 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. Maybe there is some common part of a SoC which that generic compatible would express? Most archs don't use soc-wide generic compatible, because of reasons I mentioned - no actual benefits for anyone from such compatible. But there are exceptions. I fouun socfpga and apple. The apple sounds as mistake to me, because the generic "apple,arm-platform" compatible looks like covering all possible Apple ARM platforms. I think Apple ARM designs in 20 years will not be compatible at all with current design, so such broad compatible is not useful... but that's only my opinion. > > 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 This would be tricky as it was already accepted, unless all sit in linux-next and did not make to v5.19-rc1. Best regards, Krzysztof
