On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 04:03:57PM +0200, Hakan Jansson wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On 6/27/2022 7:34 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 04:06:25PM +0200, Hakan Jansson wrote: > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > > > Thanks for replying. > > > > > > On 6/20/2022 2:32 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > > CYW55572 is a Wi-Fi + Bluetooth combo device from Infineon. > > > > > Extend the binding with its DT compatible. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hakan Jansson <hakan.jansson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml | 1 + > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml > > > > > index df59575840fe..71fe9b17f8f1 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml > > > > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ properties: > > > > > - brcm,bcm43540-bt > > > > > - brcm,bcm4335a0 > > > > > - brcm,bcm4349-bt > > > > > + - infineon,cyw55572-bt > > > > Patch is okay, but just to be sure - is it entirely different device > > > > from Infineon or some variant of Broadcom block? > > > CYW55572 is a new device from Infineon. It is not the same as any Broadcom > > > device. > > > > > > > Are all existing > > > > properties applicable to it as well? > > > Yes, all existing properties are applicable. > > Including 'brcm,bt-pcm-int-params'? > > Yes, 'brcm,bt-pcm-int-params' is also applicable to CYW55572. > > > I don't see a BT reset signal > > either, but maybe that's not pinned out in the AzureWave module which > > was the only documentation details I could find[1]. > > That's correct, CYW55572 does not have a BT reset signal. Most of the > existing listed compatible devices does not seem to have a BT reset signal > either so I think this is in line with the intention of the existing > document and driver implementation. > > > I think a separate doc will be better as it can be more precise as to > > what's allowed or not. It's fine to reuse the same property names > > though. > > I don't really see anything besides the optional BT reset property that > would be changed in a separate doc. As a separate doc would mean a > duplication of data that would need to be maintained in two more or less > identical docs, perhaps it would be better to modify the existing doc to > clarify for which compatible devices that the BT reset property applies? > (Which I believe are only these three: bcm20702a1, bcm4329-bt and > bcm4330-bt) Okay, I guess this is fine in the same doc. Any conditionals to tighten up the constraints would be welcome. Rob
