On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:09:24 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/01/2023 15:07, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:00:56 +0100 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [...] > >>>> I asked to remove half-compatible. Not to enforce. > >>>> > > so you are saying that allowing > > compatible = "A", "B" > > is not ok, if B is not fully compatible. I agree with that > > one. > > I did not say that. It's not related to this problem. > You said "I asked to remove half-compatible" that means to me remove "B" if not fully compatible with A which sounds sane to me. > Again - you cannot have device which is and is not compatible with > something else. It's not a Schroedinger's cat to be in two states, > unless you explicitly document the cases (there are exception). If this > is such exception, it requires it's own documentation. > so conclusion: If having A and B half-compatible with A: compatible = "A" only: is allowed to specifiy it the binding (status quo), but not allowed to make the actual dtsi match the binding documentation https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/72e1194e10ccb4f87aed96265114f0963e805092.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ and https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210924091439.2561931-5-andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ compatible = "A", "B" in the binding definition: is not allowed ("I asked to remove half-compatible" (= removing B)) having mismatch between binding definition and devicetree causes dtbs_check errors -> also not nice. I rather drop this patch and learn to live with dtbs_check errors for this one since I have no idea how to proceed. All roads are blocked. This all causes too much churn. Regards, Andreas
