On 07/01/2023 16:54, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 16:07:35 +0100 > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 07/01/2023 16:01, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:09:24 +0100 >>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/01/2023 15:07, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:00:56 +0100 >>>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> I asked to remove half-compatible. Not to enforce. >>>>>>>> >>>>> so you are saying that allowing >>>>> compatible = "A", "B" >>>>> is not ok, if B is not fully compatible. I agree with that >>>>> one. >>>> >>>> I did not say that. It's not related to this problem. >>>> >>> You said "I asked to remove half-compatible" that means to me >>> remove "B" if not fully compatible with A which sounds sane to me. >>> >>>> Again - you cannot have device which is and is not compatible with >>>> something else. It's not a Schroedinger's cat to be in two states, >>>> unless you explicitly document the cases (there are exception). If this >>>> is such exception, it requires it's own documentation. >>>> >>> so conclusion: >>> If having A and B half-compatible with A: >>> >>> compatible = "A" only: is allowed to specifiy it the binding (status quo), >>> but not allowed to make the actual dtsi match the binding documentation >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/72e1194e10ccb4f87aed96265114f0963e805092.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> and >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210924091439.2561931-5-andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> compatible = "A", "B" in the binding definition: is not allowed ("I asked to remove >>> half-compatible" (= removing B)) >> >> No, half compatible is the A in such case. >> > I think that there is some misunderstanding in here. I try once again. > > Define compatible with "X" here: > To me it means: > > device fully works with flags defined in: > > static const struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_X_data = { ... }; > > with usdhc_X_data referenced in > { .compatible = "X", .data = &usdhc_X_data, }, > > > So if there is only "A" matching with above definition of compatibility > compatible = "A" would sound sane to me. > > And scrutinizing the flags more and not just wanting to achieve error-free > dtbs_check, I think is this in most cases where there is only "A". > > If there is "A" and "B" which match that compatibility definition, you > say that only compatible = "A", "B" is allowed, but not compatible = "A". > In that case I would have no problem with that. > > But if there is only "A" but no "B" matching the above definition, I would expect > that only compatible = "A" is allowed but *not* compatible = "A", "B". Sorry, I don't follow. I also do not understand what "matching" means in these terms (binding driver? of_match?) and also I do not know what is the "above definition". Devicetree spec defines the compatibility - so this is the definition. There will be differences when applying it to different cases. Best regards, Krzysztof
