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
