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

["Hugo Osvaldo Barrera" <hugo@whynothugo.nl>]

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@whynothugo.nl>
>> ---
>>  .../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.

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?
Or am I missing something else?

Thanks,

-- 
Hugo