[RESEND PATCH 2/9] dt-bindings: arm64: bcmbca: Update BCM4908 description

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 2022-07-21 09:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/07/2022 09:13, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>> That's better argument. But what's the benefit of adding generic
>>> compatible? Devices cannot bind to it (it is too generic). Does it
>>> describe the device anyhow? Imagine someone adding compatible
>>> "brcm,all-soc-of-broadcom" - does it make any sense?
>> 
>> OK, I see it now. I can't think of any case of handling all devices
>> covered with suc a wide brcm,bcmbca binding.
> 
> Maybe there is some common part of a SoC which that generic compatible
> would express?
> 
> Most archs don't use soc-wide generic compatible, because of reasons I
> mentioned - no actual benefits for anyone from such compatible.
> 
> But there are exceptions. I fouun socfpga and apple. The apple sounds 
> as
> mistake to me, because the generic "apple,arm-platform" compatible 
> looks
> like covering all possible Apple ARM platforms. I think Apple ARM
> designs in 20 years will not be compatible at all with current design,
> so such broad compatible is not useful... but that's only my opinion.

Let's see if William / Broadcom guys can provide a valid argument for
the brcm,bcmbca.


>> This leads me to another question if we should actually totally drop
>> brcm,bcmbca from other SoCs bindings, see linux-next's
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,bcmbca.yaml
> 
> This would be tricky as it was already accepted, unless all sit in
> linux-next and did not make to v5.19-rc1.

5.19-rc7 has only 1 case with brcm,bcmbca, see ff6992735ade7
("Linux 5.19-rc7"):
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,bcmbca.yaml?id=ff6992735ade75aae3e35d16b17da1008d753d28

So we can still clean it up for the 5.20-rc1 or 5.20-rc2.