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

[Hugo Osvaldo Barrera]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2026, at 14:04, Conor Dooley wrote:
> 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.
>

Right, CHECK_DTBS=y fails without that change.
So the second patch (which changes brcm,bluetooth.yaml) should be merged,
but not the other one is unnecessary and can be ignored.

I don't need to re-submit the second path independently, it's fine to
just merge one patch and ignore the other, right?

-- 
Hugo