Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: arm: bcm: NSP: add Meraki MX64/MX65

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:21:31AM +0100, Matthew Hagan wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> Many thanks for taking the time to review the submission.
> 
> On 11/06/2021 20:46, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:27:13AM +0100, Matthew Hagan wrote:
> >> Add bindings for the Meraki MX64/MX65 series. Note this patch should be
> >> applied on top of "dt-bindings: arm: bcm: add NSP devices to SoCs".
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matthew Hagan <mnhagan88@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,nsp.yaml | 6 ++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,nsp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,nsp.yaml
> >> index 78dfa315f3d0..7d184ba7d180 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,nsp.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,nsp.yaml
> >> @@ -62,6 +62,12 @@ properties:
> >>            - enum:
> >>                - brcm,bcm958625hr
> >>                - brcm,bcm958625k
> >> +              - meraki,mx64
> >> +              - meraki,mx64-a0
> >> +              - meraki,mx64w
> >> +              - meraki,mx64w-a0
> >> +              - meraki,mx65
> >> +              - meraki,mx65w
> >>            - const: brcm,bcm58625
> >>            - const: brcm,nsp
> >>  
> >> -- 
> >> 2.26.3
> >>
> > I think these compatibles describe SoCs, whereas Meraki MX64/MX65 are
> > boards, so this is a miscategorization. Can you not just describe the
> > Northstar Plus SoC that you are using in your compatible string?
> 
> My understanding is that the bcm958625hr and bcm958625k are dev boards
> using the BCM58625 SoC variant of NSP. For reference, a close example
> can be found in brcm,bcm4708.yaml in the same directory:
> 
>       - description: BCM53012 based boards
>         items:
>           - enum:
>               - brcm,bcm953012er
>               - brcm,bcm953012hr
>               - brcm,bcm953012k
>               - meraki,mr32
>           - const: brcm,brcm53012
>           - const: brcm,brcm53016
>           - const: brcm,bcm4708
> 
> For the compatible string we would definitely need to specify a unique
> device name for identification by the OS, rather than just the SoC.
> 
> Of course I could be mistaken. Will await confirmation on this.

Yeah, ok, fair, after rechecking I think you're right. I'm dropping this charge.