Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-48906-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240119215231.758844-1-mmayer@broadcom.com> <20240119215231.758844-2-mmayer@broadcom.com>
 <6d8d5c33-f814-4c06-ae97-7579aec3bb15@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <6d8d5c33-f814-4c06-ae97-7579aec3bb15@linaro.org>
From: Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 14:01:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGt4E5uU1aiS9ZFowYFUYM5ARdzR2sP+FaWErjZ-VbEoui3-0A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: memory: remove generic compatible
 string brcm,dpfe-cpu
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, 
	Device Tree Mailing List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 13:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 19/01/2024 22:52, Markus Mayer wrote:
> > The generic compatible string "brcm,dpfe-cpu" is removed from the
> > binding as it does not provide any actual benefit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com>
> > ---
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml  | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml
> > index 08cbdcddfead..e2b990e4a792 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/brcm,dpfe-cpu.yaml
> > @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ properties:
> >        - enum:
> >            - brcm,bcm7271-dpfe-cpu
> >            - brcm,bcm7268-dpfe-cpu
> > -      - const: brcm,dpfe-cpu
>
> We cannot have undocumented compatibles, so I think you wanted to
> deprecate it instead. Also, please extend the reasoning from "any actual
> benefit". Were there any users? Don't they need it?

Absolutely. I'll change it to deprecate the compatible string instead.

As for the reason deprecating it, it was intended as the "standard"
compatible string that everybody would end up using with the
chip-specific one as fallback should a particular chip require a tweak
down the road. That's why it was introduced. But then the business
with the incompatible DPFE APIs started happening, and the plan to use
"brcm,dpfe-cpu" as the "normal" compatible string that everybody could
use was no longer workable.

Does that make sense as the more in-depth explanation for deprecating it?

Regards,
-Markus