[PATCH 01/10] dt-bindings: mtd: brcm,brcmnand: Drop "brcm,brcmnand" compatible for iProc

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 10:05:04AM -0800, William Zhang wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 9:53 AM Rob Herring (Arm) <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Some users of "brcm,nand-iproc" include "brcm,brcmnand" and some don't.
> > The "brcm,brcmnand" compatible is not useful for iProc systems as
> > there's a separate driver for iProc. So drop it as a fallback.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh at kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml
> > index 064e840aeaa1..3105f8e6cbd6 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml
> > @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ properties:
> >          items:
> >            - const: brcm,nand-iproc
> >            - const: brcm,brcmnand-v6.1
> > -          - const: brcm,brcmnand
> >        - description: BCM63168 SoC-specific NAND controller
> >          items:
> >            - const: brcm,nand-bcm63168
> >
> > --
> > 2.51.0
> >
> 
> Another fix would be adding brcm,brcmnand to the users of
> brcm,nand-iproc to keep consistency with all other brcmnand chips and
> utilize the fallback mechanism in the driver, although I agree it does
> not happen in real life case.
> I don't have any strong opinion either way but a follow-up change is
> needed to remove the fallback from the brcm,nand-iproc dts files if we
> go this route.

The question to ask on a fallback is "is it usable on its own?". IOW, 
would a driver than only understands brcm,brcmnand function in this 
case. Given iproc needs its own driver and specific handling, the answer 
is no here.

Plus, this matches what dts files actually have at least for the arm64 
ones. 

Rob