Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: bluetooth: broadcom: add BCM43752

[Conor Dooley]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 01:32:18PM +0200, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2026, at 21:17, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2026 at 11:55:00AM +0200, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> >> Document the compatible string for BCM43752.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Hugo Osvaldo Barrera <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml        | 1 +
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml
> >> index 95501e858e6f..04e8a968548d 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/brcm,bluetooth.yaml
> >> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ properties:
> >>            - brcm,bcm43438-bt
> >>            - brcm,bcm4345c5
> >>            - brcm,bcm43540-bt
> >> +          - brcm,bcm43752-bt
> >
> > This new compatible uses no match data. Why is a fallback compatible not
> > suitable?
> >
> 
> I wasn't aware that this was the preferred approach.
> 
> I used `compatible = "brcm,bcm43752-bt", "brcm,bcm43430a0-bt";`
> in my DT and Bluetooth works equally well. Both of these patches
> can be ignored, thanks for the review.

You still need to add a binding patch to document the new compatible,
just it will permit the fallback.

> There are multiple compatible with no match data, and I was
> mostly following that approach. Are they there mostly for
> legacy reasons and adding more with no match data is discouraged?

Correct.

Cheers,
Conor.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature