On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 06:41:50PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 10:29:33AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

quoted

 properties:
   compatible:
-    enum:
-      - fsl,lynx-28g
+    oneOf:
+      - items:
+          - const: fsl,lynx-28g

Don't change that part. Previous enum was correct. You want oneOf and
enum.

Combining the feedback from Conor and Josua, I should only be permitting
the use of "fsl,lynx-28g" as a fallback to "fsl,lx216{0,2}a-serdes{1,2}",
or standalone. The description below achieves just that. Does it look ok
to you?

properties:
  compatible:
    oneOf:
      - enum:
          - fsl,lx2160a-serdes1
          - fsl,lx2160a-serdes2
          - fsl,lx2160a-serdes3
          - fsl,lx2162a-serdes1
          - fsl,lx2162a-serdes2
      - const: fsl,lynx-28g
        deprecated: true

      - items:
          - const: fsl,lx2160a-serdes1
          - const: fsl,lynx-28g
        deprecated: true
      - items:
          - const: fsl,lx2160a-serdes2
          - const: fsl,lynx-28g
        deprecated: true
      - items:
          - const: fsl,lx2162a-serdes1
          - const: fsl,lynx-28g
        deprecated: true
      - items:
          - const: fsl,lx2162a-serdes2
          - const: fsl,lynx-28g
        deprecated: true

This doesn't really make sense, none of these are currently in use
right? Everything is just using fsl,lynx-28g right?
Adding new stuff and immediately marking it deprecated is a
contradiction, just don't add it at all if you don't want people using
it. Any users of it would be something you're going to retrofit in now,
so you may as well just retrofit to use what you want people to use
going forward, which has no fallbacks.

I didn't read the back and forth with Josua (sorry!) but is the fallback
even valid? Do those devices have a common minimum set of features that
they share?