On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 11:37:18AM -0700, William Zhang wrote:Since we moved all the Broadcom Broadband BCA origin SoC to ARCH_BCMBCA arch, I think it makes sense to have that as the last part of the compatible string, not really for reducing the number. And for that matter, we have agreed to not change anything to Rafal dts definitions including the number of compat strings but just appending brcm,bca. So we are all good now.
Hi Rafal,
On 7/13/22 03:58, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 2022-07-13 12:50, 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:Understand the DT schema purpose. But items property allows multiple
For 4908 board variant, it will need to be followed by+ - 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.
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
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 can't just put all strings into a single bag and allow mixing them
in any combos. Please check how it's properly handled in the current
existing binding:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,bcm4908.yaml
Above binding enforces that non-matching compatible strings are not used
together.
I just noticed you're actually removing brcm,bcm4908.yaml in the 2/3 so
you must be aware of that file.
So you see a cleanly working binding in the brcm,bcm4908.yaml but
instead copying it you decided to wrote your own one from scratch.
Incorrectly.
This smells of NIH (not invented here). Please just use that binding I
wrote and move if it needed.
Not mean to discredit any of your work and I did copy over your binding and
combine them into one SoC entry to the new bcmbca.yaml and add you as one of
the maintainer to this file. As this change would certainly concern you,
that's why I sent RFC first. As I explained in the cover letter, the
purpose of the change is to reduce the number of compatible strings and keep
one entry for one chip family due to possible large number of chip variants.
But since there is no way to validate the combination, I will copy the
existing 4908 bindings as they are now but I would propose to append "brcm,
bcmbca" as it is part of bcmbca chip. And for the other chips, we would just
use enum "board variant", const "main chip id", const "brcm,bca". Does that
sound good to you?
If you want fewer combinations of compatibles, adding a genericish
"brcm,bcmbca" is not going to help. Is there much value to adding it?
What can you do with that information (and nothing else) is the
question to ask.
Rob
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature