On 07/21/2022 12:01 AM, 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?
In case you were also referring the generic 4908 board compatible string
brcm,bcm94908, this is for a bare bone 4908 board dts that only enables
ARM cpu subsystem, memory and uart. It can be used on all 4908 based
Broadcom reference boards and customer board. It is especially useful
for initial board bring up and one can load this generic board and start
work and debug from the console. Also would be helpful to do a quick
verification of new kernel version when there is cpu subsystem related
change.
I guess my mindset already assume people are now familiar with this
model of bcmbca binding addition for a new SoC since we introduced the
bcmbca arch with first soc 47622 and 10+ other socs late. But sure I
agree and I will update the commit message with more details in addition
to what the cover letter says.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
