Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: broadcom: bcm2712-d-rpi-5-b: add compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 10/08/2026 13:13, Gregor Herburger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 09:19:35AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 02:52:44PM +0200, Gregor Herburger wrote:
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>> On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 01:55:50PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>>> Hi Gregor,
>>>>
>>>> drop Eric and add Peter.
>>>>
>>>> Am 05.08.26 um 09:27 schrieb Gregor Herburger:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 04:57:09PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Gregor,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sorry for my late reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 04.08.26 um 15:13 schrieb Gregor Herburger:
>>>>>>> The bcm2712 found on the Raspberry Pi 5 is available in the d Stepping
>>>>>>> and in a c Stepping. There are two separate dts files. The
>>>>>>> bcm2712-rpi-5-b.dts for the c Stepping and the bcm2712-d-rpi-5-b.dts for
>>>>>>> the d Stepping. The d stepping does not set its own compatible/model
>>>>>>> string but uses "raspberrypi,5-model-b".
>>>>>> In case the SoC and not the board has a D stepping, why do just change the
>>>>>> board compatible without the SoC compatible like "brcm,bcm2712-d0"?
>>>>> You mean changing both compatible strings? Like this:
>>>>> 	compatible = "raspberrypi,5-model-b-d0", "brcm,bcm2712-d0";
>>>> I just want to mention that your explanation doesn't match to your changes.
>>>> The first compatible represent the whole board (RPi 5) and the second one
>>>> represent only the SoC (BCM2712). Since the SoC is different according your
>>>> explanation, i would expect the SoC compatible needs to be changed. And in
>>>> case the SoC changes, also the board won't be compatible anymore, correct?
>>> Yes the SoC differs in these two versions and the board is maybe the same (but
>>
>> Different SoC means different SoC-compatible. If the soc is soldered to
>> the board, then it also means board is different. Otherwise how can it
>> be the same board if it comes with different elements?
> That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation. I will add a board
> compatible and a SoC compatible.
>>
>> Of course boards can share schematics and everything except some
>> component so you could have common compatible.
>>
>> 1. Rpi 5b d0
>> 2. Rpi 5b
>> 3. bcm2712-d0
>>
> 
> But I don't think that should be done here. As you explained in the previous
> iteration [0] we shouldn't add a non-compatible fallback.

Well, true, this was more matching regular case, where (2) is common
board compatible. In your case this is not compatible, so just 1+3.


Best regards,
Krzysztof