Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: arm64: bcmbca: Merge BCM4908 into BCMBCA

[Florian Fainelli]

On 7/13/22 03:50, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 2022-07-13 02:57, William Zhang wrote:
> > On 7/12/22 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 12/07/2022 19:37, William Zhang wrote:
> > > > > > +      - description: BCM4908 Family based boards
> > > > > > +        items:
> > > > > > +          - enum:
> > > > > > +              # BCM4908 SoC based boards
> > > > > > +              - brcm,bcm94908
> > > > > > +              - asus,gt-ac5300
> > > > > > +              - netgear,raxe500
> > > > > > +              # BCM4906 SoC based boards
> > > > > > +              - brcm,bcm94906
> > > > > > +              - netgear,r8000p
> > > > > > +              - tplink,archer-c2300-v1
> > > > > > +          - enum:
> > > > > > +              - brcm,bcm4908
> > > > > > +              - brcm,bcm4906
> > > > > > +              - brcm,bcm49408
> > > > >
> > > > > This is wrong.  brcm,bcm94908 followed by brcm,bcm4906 does not look
> > > > > like valid list of compatibles.
> > > > For 4908 board variant, it will need to be followed by 4908 chip. Sorry
> > > > for the basic question but is there any requirement to enforce this 
> > > > kind
> > > > of rule?  I would assume dts writer know what he/she is doing and 
> > > > select
> > > > the right combination.
> > >
> > > The entire point of DT schema is to validate DTS. Combination like above
> > > prevents that goal.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Krzysztof
> > Understand the DT schema purpose. But items property allows multiple
> > enums in the list which gives a lot of flexibility but make it hard to
> > validate. I am not familiar with DT schema, is there any directive to
> > specify one enum value depending on another so dts validation tool can
> > report error if combination is wrong?
> >
> > This is our preferred format of all bcmbca compatible string
> > especially when we could have more than 10 chip variants for the same
> > chip family and we really want to work on the chip family id.  We will
> > make sure they are in the right combination in our own patch and patch
> > from other contributors. Would this work? If not, I will probably have
> > to revert the change of 4908(maybe append brcm,bcmbca as this chip
> > belongs to the same bca group) and use "enum board variant", "const
> > main chip id", "brcm,bca" for all other chips as our secondary choice.
>
> I'm not sure why I didn't even receive 1/3 and half of discussion
> e-mails.

You are copied on all 4 emails (including cover letter).
--
Florian