Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: wireless: restore constraint for brcm,bcm4329-fmac compatible property

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On August 20, 2024 2:50:24 PM Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 8/20/2024 1:39 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 20/08/2024 13:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:12:15PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
When extending the bindings for Apple PCIe devices the compatible property
specification was changed. However, it was changed such that for these
devices it was no longer necessary to have "brcm,bcm4329-fmac" listed as
string in the compatible list property as it was before that extension.

Apart that this was never tested... That statement is not true. Look at
"fixed" commit - it is not doing like that at all.

I don't understand the reasoning.

This patch restores that constraint.

Fixes: e2e37224e8b3 ("dt-bindings: net: bcm4329-fmac: Add Apple properties & chips")
Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml       | 19 ++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml
index e564f20d8f41..47f90446322f 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/brcm,bcm4329-fmac.yaml
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
title: Broadcom BCM4329 family fullmac wireless SDIO/PCIE devices

maintainers:
-  - Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
+  - Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

description:
The Broadcom Single chip MAC part for the BCM4329 family and
@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ properties:
         - brcm,bcm4341b0-fmac
         - brcm,bcm4341b4-fmac
         - brcm,bcm4341b5-fmac
-              - brcm,bcm4329-fmac
         - brcm,bcm4330-fmac
         - brcm,bcm4334-fmac
         - brcm,bcm43340-fmac
@@ -46,13 +45,15 @@ properties:
         - cypress,cyw43012-fmac
         - infineon,cyw43439-fmac
     - const: brcm,bcm4329-fmac
-      - enum:
-          - brcm,bcm4329-fmac
-          - pci14e4,43dc  # BCM4355
-          - pci14e4,4464  # BCM4364
-          - pci14e4,4488  # BCM4377
-          - pci14e4,4425  # BCM4378
-          - pci14e4,4433  # BCM4387
+    - items:
+          - enum:
+              - pci14e4,43dc  # BCM4355
+              - pci14e4,4464  # BCM4364
+              - pci14e4,4488  # BCM4377
+              - pci14e4,4425  # BCM4378
+              - pci14e4,4433  # BCM4387
+          - const: brcm,bcm4329-fmac
+    - const: brcm,bcm4329-fmac

And this does not make sense... You claim that some constrained was
droppped and you re-add it, but in fact you still add the same code as
it was before.

NAK.

Ah, the last "const" actually makes sense, I missed that.

Commit still however lacks rationale why these devices are compatible.
Plus existing rationale that e2e37224e8b3 changed something is entirely
WRONG. It changed nothing. ZERO. It only added new devices, which was
claimed are not compatible with brcm,bcm4329-fmac.

So is that claim true? What does it mean that these new devices are not
compatible. If they are they should be in a separate binding or the
applicable properties for these devices should be made conditional.

Now if you claim that original commit which said "these devices are not
compatible with brcm,bcm4329-fmac", then please provide arguments, not
just say "other commit did something". It did nothing...

Not entirely true. Indeed new devices were added for which no
"brcm,bcm4329-fmac" string is required in the compatible property. Also
the commit added new properties for these new devices. Now in my opinion
a driver should not use these properties without a "compatible" check.
Hope we can agree to that. However, the driver patch for supporting the
binding change does no such thing. So if we leave the binding as it
currently is the driver will have to check if compatible has any of the
listed PCI IDs before processing the properties. As all properties old
and new are marked as optional I can not come up with an argument that
these new devices are *not* compatible with brcm,bcm4329-fmac.

Looking at the commit in patchwork I see no claim in the commit message that the new devices are not compatible. The patch even adds enum with the PCI IDs *and* brcm,bcm4329-fmac. It is anyone's guess what the intent was for doing that. My take is that this was a mistake worth fixing.

Regards,
Arend


Regards,
Arend

Best regards,
Krzysztof







[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux