On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 03:26:11PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > To be clear: ls1012a, ls1028a and lx2160a should be either followed by > compatible or not. Cannot be both. LS1012A should be followed by fallback compatible for practical reasons (Linux kernel worked that way up to 5.7, time during which LS1012A was supported). LS1028A and LX2160A device trees were both introduced after the Linux kernel started looking at specific device trees, so I believe that Linux never relied on the fallback compatible string and it could be removed. The fallback is present in device trees in circulation, even if the .txt schema says it isn't required. I don't know what the BSDs do about this, so I'd be tempted to leave them in the camp with required fallbacks, just because it's not worth risking a regression.
