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

[William Zhang]

Hi Rob,

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 9:53 AM Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  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.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature