[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