Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: net: broadcom-bluetooth: Add CYW55572 DT binding

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 04:03:57PM +0200, Hakan Jansson wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On 6/27/2022 7:34 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 04:06:25PM +0200, Hakan Jansson wrote:
> > > Hi Krzysztof,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for replying.
> > > 
> > > On 6/20/2022 2:32 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > CYW55572 is a Wi-Fi + Bluetooth combo device from Infineon.
> > > > > Extend the binding with its DT compatible.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Hakan Jansson <hakan.jansson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml | 1 +
> > > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml
> > > > > index df59575840fe..71fe9b17f8f1 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/broadcom-bluetooth.yaml
> > > > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ properties:
> > > > >          - brcm,bcm43540-bt
> > > > >          - brcm,bcm4335a0
> > > > >          - brcm,bcm4349-bt
> > > > > +      - infineon,cyw55572-bt
> > > > Patch is okay, but just to be sure - is it entirely different device
> > > > from Infineon or some variant of Broadcom block?
> > > CYW55572 is a new device from Infineon. It is not the same as any Broadcom
> > > device.
> > > 
> > > >    Are all existing
> > > > properties applicable to it as well?
> > > Yes, all existing properties are applicable.
> > Including 'brcm,bt-pcm-int-params'?
> 
> Yes, 'brcm,bt-pcm-int-params' is also applicable to CYW55572.
> 
> > I don't see a BT reset signal
> > either, but maybe that's not pinned out in the AzureWave module which
> > was the only documentation details I could find[1].
> 
> That's correct, CYW55572 does not have a BT reset signal. Most of the
> existing listed compatible devices does not seem to have a BT reset signal
> either so I think this is in line with the intention of the existing
> document and driver implementation.
> 
> > I think a separate doc will be better as it can be more precise as to
> > what's allowed or not. It's fine to reuse the same property names
> > though.
> 
> I don't really see anything besides the optional BT reset property that
> would be changed in a separate doc.  As a separate doc would mean a
> duplication of data that would need to be maintained in two more or less
> identical docs, perhaps it would be better to modify the existing doc to
> clarify for which compatible devices that the BT reset property applies?
> (Which I believe are only these three: bcm20702a1, bcm4329-bt and
> bcm4330-bt)

Okay, I guess this is fine in the same doc. Any conditionals to tighten 
up the constraints would be welcome.

Rob