On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 13:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19/01/2024 22:52, Markus Mayer wrote: > > The generic compatible string "brcm,dpfe-cpu" is removed from the > > binding as it does not provide any actual benefit. > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml > > index 08cbdcddfead..e2b990e4a792 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml > > @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ properties: > > - enum: > > - brcm,bcm7271-dpfe-cpu > > - brcm,bcm7268-dpfe-cpu > > - - const: brcm,dpfe-cpu > > We cannot have undocumented compatibles, so I think you wanted to > deprecate it instead. Also, please extend the reasoning from "any actual > benefit". Were there any users? Don't they need it? Absolutely. I'll change it to deprecate the compatible string instead. As for the reason deprecating it, it was intended as the "standard" compatible string that everybody would end up using with the chip-specific one as fallback should a particular chip require a tweak down the road. That's why it was introduced. But then the business with the incompatible DPFE APIs started happening, and the plan to use "brcm,dpfe-cpu" as the "normal" compatible string that everybody could use was no longer workable. Does that make sense as the more in-depth explanation for deprecating it? Regards, -Markus
