On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 3:28 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/12/2023 21:21, Kamal Dasu wrote:
> From: Kamal Dasu <kdasu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> With newer sdio controller core used for 74165b0 we need to update
> the compatibility with "brcm,bcm74165b0-sdhci".
>
> Signed-off-by: Kamal Dasu <kdasu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/brcm,sdhci-brcmstb.yaml | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/brcm,sdhci-brcmstb.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/brcm,sdhci-brcmstb.yaml
> index c028039bc477..cec9ff063794 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/brcm,sdhci-brcmstb.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/brcm,sdhci-brcmstb.yaml
> @@ -13,6 +13,11 @@ maintainers:
> properties:
> compatible:
> oneOf:
> + - items:
> + - enum:
> + - brcm,bcm74165b0-sdhci
> + - const: brcm,bcm74165-sdhci
What is exactly the difference between bcm74165b0 and bcm74165? Your
driver does not use bcm74165, so I wonder what its purpose is.
Few days ago, for different patchset, I was asking "why", because the
motivation was not clear from the code. Here you said "we need to", but
I would argue: no you do not need to add bcm74165 if it means nothing,
thus this commit msg has similar problem. Does not answer why it is done
like this.
I agree it can be removed in this case, it is just a convention that we have the base chip id without the a0, b0 postfix in general. However since this compatibility is just used by the sdhci core it's not necessary. let me send a v2 version with the change.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
