On 07/01/2023 14:43, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 14:23:08 +0100 > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 06/01/2023 20:33, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 09:41:01 +0100 >>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/01/2023 22:38, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >>>>> Currently make dtbs_check shows lots of errors because imx*.dtsi does >>>>> not use single compatibles but combinations of them. >>>>> Allow all the combinations used there. >>>>> >>>>> Patches fixing the dtsi files according to binding documentation were >>>>> submitted multiple times and are commonly rejected, so relax the rules. >>>>> Example: >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/72e1194e10ccb4f87aed96265114f0963e805092.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>> >>>>> Reason: compatibility of new dtbs with old kernels or bootloaders. >>>>> >>>>> This will significantly reduce noise on make dtbs_check. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml | 24 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml >>>>> index dc6256f04b42..118ebb75f136 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml >>>>> @@ -37,6 +37,30 @@ properties: >>>>> - fsl,imx8mm-usdhc >>>>> - fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc >>>>> - nxp,s32g2-usdhc >>>> >>>> You must drop the items from enum above. Binding saying: >>>> compatible="A" >>>> or: >>>> compatible="A", "B" >>>> >>>> is not correct. Either A is or is not compatible with B. >>>> >>> hmm, here we have A = B + some additional features >>> or >>> A = B + some additional features and additional quirks required. >> >> So why do you allow A alone? >> > because A is full-compatible, and B is half-compatible, because > the additional required quirks are not applied. As I explained you in private message you sent me: That's not how compatibles are working. If device is not compatible with B, then you cannot have it as fallback, so the patch is not correct. If device is A and is compatible with B, then keeping A and A+B is also incorrect because it is redundant. This is not only here, it's everywhere, so I do not see the point to make exception for this device. Patch is incorrect. Best regards, Krzysztof >>> >>> For the latter we have e.g. >>> A= >>> static const struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx6sx_data = { >>> .flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING >>> | ESDHC_FLAG_HAVE_CAP1 | ESDHC_FLAG_HS200 >>> | ESDHC_FLAG_STATE_LOST_IN_LPMODE >>> | ESDHC_FLAG_BROKEN_AUTO_CMD23, >>> }; >>> B= >>> static const struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx6sl_data = { >>> .flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING >>> | ESDHC_FLAG_HAVE_CAP1 | ESDHC_FLAG_ERR004536 >>> | ESDHC_FLAG_HS200 >>> | ESDHC_FLAG_BROKEN_AUTO_CMD23, >>> }; >>> >>> so there is the difference in ESDHC_FLAG_STATE_LOST_IN_LPMODE. >>> That might make no difference in some usage scenario (e.g. some bootloader >>> not doing any LPMODE), but I wonder why >>> we need to *enforce* specifying such half-compatible things. >> >> I asked to remove half-compatible. Not to enforce. >> > well B is half-compatible, I (and others) have sent patches to remove, > but they were rejected. I consider these patches the way to go. No, they are not correct. Best regards, Krzysztof
