On 20/08/2024 17:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/08/2024 14:50, Arend van Spriel 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 > > Whether binding is separate or not, is just way of organizing things. > >> applicable properties for these devices should be made conditional. > > Could be if they are not applicable. > >> >>> 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 > > Sorry, I don't follow. Why the driver would need to check for compatible? > >> 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 > > Why driver needs to check it? Are these properties not valid? > >> 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. > > Compatibility is expressed by implementing same programming interfasce > (or its subset) thus being able to bind via fallback and correctly > operate in given SW. > > I don't know whether that's the case here, so rephrasing my earlier > comments - the commit msg should focus on this aspect and tell that > devices are fully compatible, thus they should use fallback. > > Quick look at drivers told me that not - they are not compatible... Another thing is that calling SDIO and PCI devices compatible is quite a stretch... Clearly hardware-wise they are very different and Linux does not use the same interfaces to match/bind them. Best regards, Krzysztof