On 22/11/2023 16:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>> For example a year ago I added binding for BCMBCA SoC timer without
>>> actual driver, see e112f2de151b ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Broadcom's
>>> BCMBCA timers").
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if we're going to agree on this, but personally I like
>>> describing hardware as much as I can. So it's well documented /
>>> understood and people may eventually write drivers for it. Maybe it's
>>> partially because I come from Broadcom's world that isn't well known
>>> for upstream efforts in general.
>>
>> The problem is that "brcm,bcmbca-hs-uart" is not describing hardware. It
>> is saying that all these devices have similar (compatible) programming
>> model, so the OS can use just one compatible. This goes away from pure
>> hardware description into interpretation.
>>
>> Rob already commented on such non-SoC compatibles multiple times. I do
>> not see any reason here to not use specific compatible as fallback.
>
> Do I get it right we should rather have some base specific compatible
> like: "brcm,bcm63138-hs-uart" and then if anything use fallback to it
> like: "brcm,bcm4908-hs-uart", "brcm,bcm63138-hs-uart"; ?
Yes, or the other way around, depends which is probably the oldest.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
