Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] watchdog: realtek-otto: add fallback compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 14/05/2026 18:25, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> I also think "apple,wdt" is a bad example to compare with "realtek,otto-wdt".
> The former only specifies the vendor, while the latter refers to the line of
> SoCs this IP block is used for. Although I see the docs also discourage family
> compatibles.
> 
> If I may ask, what is the rationale for preferring the "older implementation"
> approach over a "family compatible" to match the common subset of supported
> features?

To add on top of Rob's:
There were already a few cases of generic fallbacks of a few IP blocks
in Qualcomm SoC, which were true for like a few years (50-100 different
SoCs!). So you really thought a generic compatible is generic, matching
entire family or all SoCS.

And then last year they came with a few new ones which are NOT
COMPATIBLE with that generic one.

So let's create another generic fallback? But how do you define it? What
is the generic part there? Even within family you have differences and
in many cases SW people just don't know.

IMO, the generic fallback is fake construct or rather "faith" construct:
I hope these devices will be compatible enough to use that generic
fallback. Hope is not enough and if that's the only thing you got, then
just use specific fallback.

And that's exactly the feedback Qualcomm got for these new "generic"
variants.

Best regards,
Krzysztof