On 07/01/2023 16:01, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > 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)) No, half compatible is the A in such case. > > 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. And why you cannot implement what I asked for? Best regards, Krzysztof
