On 06/12/2023 17:32, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 12/6/2023 3:09 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 05/12/2023 19:47, Markus Mayer wrote: >>> Add versioned compatible strings for Broadcom DPFE. These take the form >>> brcm,dpfe-cpu-v<N> where <N> is a number from 1 to 4. >>> >>> These API version related compatible strings are more specific than the >>> catch-all "brcm,dpfe-cpu" and more generic than chip-specific compatible >>> strings. >> >> None of this explains: Why? I don't see any point in this and commit >> does not explain. >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml | 8 +++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml >>> index 08cbdcddfead..6dffa7b62baf 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml >>> @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@ properties: >>> - enum: >>> - brcm,bcm7271-dpfe-cpu >>> - brcm,bcm7268-dpfe-cpu >>> + - enum: >>> + - brcm,dpfe-cpu-v1 >>> + - brcm,dpfe-cpu-v2 >>> + - brcm,dpfe-cpu-v3 >>> + - brcm,dpfe-cpu-v4 >> >> No, that's just wrong. So you want to say bcm7271 is brcm,dpfe-cpu-v4? > > No as the example shows it "speaks" API v1. Example is not a binding. It does not matter except of validating the binding. This is just incorrect. > > I would be inclined to completely remove the chip specific compatible > strings from the binding because they are not sufficient or descriptive > enough to determine which API version is being spoken, since the > firmware is unfortunately allowed to change major APIs (and the > messaging format, because why not?) at a moments notice. Then versions do not give you anything more. Best regards, Krzysztof
