dt-bindings: watchdog: brcm, bcm7038: add more compatible strings
Subsystems (4)
PATCH 1/1 dt-bindings: watchdog: brcm, bcm7038: add more compatible strings
From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
This hardware block is used on almost all BCM63xx family chipsets and BCM4908 which reuses a lot of BCM63xx parts. Add relevant compatible strings and also include a generic one.
The only SoC with a different block I found is BCM6838 (thus not included in this change).
It may be worth noting that BCM6338, BCM6345, BCM6348 and BCM63268 don't include "SoftRst" register but that can be handled by drivers based on precise compatible string.
--- .../bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml | 21 +++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +17 -4
@@ -16,9 +16,22 @@ maintainers: properties: compatible: - enum: - - brcm,bcm6345-wdt - - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + items: + - enum: + - brcm,bcm4908-wdt + - brcm,bcm60333-wdt + - brcm,bcm63138-wdt + - brcm,bcm63148-wdt + - brcm,bcm63268-wdt + - brcm,bcm63381-wdt + - brcm,bcm6848-wdt + - brcm,bcm6858-wdt + - brcm,bcm68360-wdt + - brcm,bcm6338-wdt + - brcm,bcm6345-wdt + - brcm,bcm6348-wdt + - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + - const: brcm,bcm63xx-wdt reg: maxItems: 1
@@ -37,7 +50,7 @@ required: examples: - | watchdog@f040a7e8 { - compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; + compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt", "brcm,bcm63xx-wdt"; reg = <0xf040a7e8 0x16>; clocks = <&upg_fixed>; };
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Rob Herring
maintainerQuoted 9 lines · Rafał Miłecki
From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
This hardware block is used on almost all BCM63xx family chipsets and BCM4908 which reuses a lot of BCM63xx parts. Add relevant compatible strings and also include a generic one.
The only SoC with a different block I found is BCM6838 (thus not included in this change).
Quoted 9 lines
It may be worth noting that BCM6338, BCM6345, BCM6348 and BCM63268 don't include "SoftRst" register but that can be handled by drivers based on precise compatible string.
Signed-off-by Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>--- .../bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml | 21 +++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check' on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
yamllint warnings/errors:
dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
/builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.example.dt.yaml: timer-mfd@ff800400: watchdog@28:compatible: ['brcm,bcm7038-wdt'] is too short
From schema: /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml
/builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.example.dt.yaml: watchdog@28: compatible: ['brcm,bcm7038-wdt'] is too short
From schema: /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml
doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs):
See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1584464
This check can fail if there are any dependencies. The base for a patch series is generally the most recent rc1.
If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to date:
pip3 install dtschema --upgrade
Please check and re-submit.
PATCH v2 1/1 dt-bindings: watchdog: brcm, bcm7038: add more compatible strings
In reply to Rafał MiłeckiFrom: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
This hardware block is used on almost all BCM63xx family chipsets and BCM4908 which reuses a lot of BCM63xx parts. Add relevant compatible strings and also include a generic one.
The only SoC with a different block I found is BCM6838 (thus not included in this change).
It may be worth noting that BCM6338, BCM6345, BCM6348 and BCM63268 don't include "SoftRst" register but that can be handled by drivers based on precise compatible string.
---
V2: Sort enum entries & update brcm,twd.yaml
--- .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml | 2 +- .../bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml | 21 +++++++++++++++---- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml +1 -1
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ examples: #size-cells = <1>; watchdog@28 { - compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; + compatible = "brcm,bcm4908-wdt", "brcm,bcm63xx-wdt"; reg = <0x28 0x8>; }; };
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +17 -4
@@ -16,9 +16,22 @@ maintainers: properties: compatible: - enum: - - brcm,bcm6345-wdt - - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + items: + - enum: + - brcm,bcm4908-wdt + - brcm,bcm6338-wdt + - brcm,bcm6345-wdt + - brcm,bcm6348-wdt + - brcm,bcm6848-wdt + - brcm,bcm6858-wdt + - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + - brcm,bcm60333-wdt + - brcm,bcm63138-wdt + - brcm,bcm63148-wdt + - brcm,bcm63268-wdt + - brcm,bcm63381-wdt + - brcm,bcm68360-wdt + - const: brcm,bcm63xx-wdt reg: maxItems: 1
@@ -37,7 +50,7 @@ required: examples: - | watchdog@f040a7e8 { - compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; + compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt", "brcm,bcm63xx-wdt"; reg = <0xf040a7e8 0x16>; clocks = <&upg_fixed>; };
Signature · 1 line
2.31.1
Rob Herring
maintainerRe: [PATCH V2] dt-bindings: watchdog: brcm,bcm7038: add more compatible strings
Quoted 51 lines · Rafał Miłecki
From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
This hardware block is used on almost all BCM63xx family chipsets and BCM4908 which reuses a lot of BCM63xx parts. Add relevant compatible strings and also include a generic one.
The only SoC with a different block I found is BCM6838 (thus not included in this change).
It may be worth noting that BCM6338, BCM6345, BCM6348 and BCM63268 don't include "SoftRst" register but that can be handled by drivers based on precise compatible string.
Signed-off-by Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>---
V2: Sort enum entries & update brcm,twd.yaml--- .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml | 2 +- .../bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml | 21 +++++++++++++++---- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml +1
-1@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ examples: #size-cells = <1>; watchdog@28 { - compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; + compatible = "brcm,bcm4908-wdt", "brcm,bcm63xx-wdt"; reg = <0x28 0x8>; }; };Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +6
-3@@ -16,9 +16,22 @@ maintainers: properties: compatible: - enum: - - brcm,bcm6345-wdt - - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + items: + - enum: + - brcm,bcm4908-wdt + - brcm,bcm6338-wdt + - brcm,bcm6345-wdt + - brcm,bcm6348-wdt
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml maintainers: · line 34
Quoted 10 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +10
-0+ - brcm,bcm6848-wdt + - brcm,bcm6858-wdt + - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + - brcm,bcm60333-wdt + - brcm,bcm63138-wdt + - brcm,bcm63148-wdt + - brcm,bcm63268-wdt + - brcm,bcm63381-wdt + - brcm,bcm68360-wdt + - const: brcm,bcm63xx-wdt
Is it really worthwhile to update all these DTs?:
arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6328.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6358.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6362.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6368.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7125.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7346.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7358.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7360.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7362.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7420.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7425.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7435.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt";
I don't think so.
Rob
Re: [PATCH V2] dt-bindings: watchdog: brcm,bcm7038: add more compatible strings
Quoted 65 lines · Rob Herring
Quoted 51 lines · Rafał Miłecki
From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
This hardware block is used on almost all BCM63xx family chipsets and BCM4908 which reuses a lot of BCM63xx parts. Add relevant compatible strings and also include a generic one.
The only SoC with a different block I found is BCM6838 (thus not included in this change).
It may be worth noting that BCM6338, BCM6345, BCM6348 and BCM63268 don't include "SoftRst" register but that can be handled by drivers based on precise compatible string.
Signed-off-by Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>---
V2: Sort enum entries & update brcm,twd.yaml--- .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml | 2 +- .../bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml | 21 +++++++++++++++---- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml +1
-1@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ examples: #size-cells = <1>; watchdog@28 { - compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; + compatible = "brcm,bcm4908-wdt", "brcm,bcm63xx-wdt"; reg = <0x28 0x8>; }; };Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +6
-3@@ -16,9 +16,22 @@ maintainers: properties: compatible: - enum: - - brcm,bcm6345-wdt - - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + items: + - enum: + - brcm,bcm4908-wdt + - brcm,bcm6338-wdt + - brcm,bcm6345-wdt + - brcm,bcm6348-wdtDocumentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml maintainers: · line 34
Quoted 10 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +10
-0+ - brcm,bcm6848-wdt + - brcm,bcm6858-wdt + - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + - brcm,bcm60333-wdt + - brcm,bcm63138-wdt + - brcm,bcm63148-wdt + - brcm,bcm63268-wdt + - brcm,bcm63381-wdt + - brcm,bcm68360-wdt + - const: brcm,bcm63xx-wdtIs it really worthwhile to update all these DTs?:
Quoted 13 lines
arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6328.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6358.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6362.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6368.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7125.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7346.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7358.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7360.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7362.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7420.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7425.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7435.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt";
I don't have problem handling that.
Quoted 1 line
I don't think so.
So what's the policy for such bindings then? How to select SoCs that should have their own bindings? How can I tell which should /borrow/ a binding instead?
I assumed we want binding per SoC based on the17fffe91ba36 ("dt-bindings: watchdog: Add BCM6345 compatible to BCM7038 binding")
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=17fffe91ba36d11c7b17be154ecc7c1ed31527eb
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Rob Herring
maintainerRe: [PATCH V2] dt-bindings: watchdog: brcm,bcm7038: add more compatible strings
Quoted 78 lines · Rafał Miłecki
Quoted 63 lines · Rob Herring
Quoted 49 lines · Rafał Miłecki
From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
This hardware block is used on almost all BCM63xx family chipsets and BCM4908 which reuses a lot of BCM63xx parts. Add relevant compatible strings and also include a generic one.
The only SoC with a different block I found is BCM6838 (thus not included in this change).
It may be worth noting that BCM6338, BCM6345, BCM6348 and BCM63268 don't include "SoftRst" register but that can be handled by drivers based on precise compatible string.
Signed-off-by Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>---
V2: Sort enum entries & update brcm,twd.yaml--- .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml | 2 +- .../bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml | 21 +++++++++++++++---- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml +1
-1@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ examples: #size-cells = <1>; watchdog@28 { - compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; + compatible = "brcm,bcm4908-wdt", "brcm,bcm63xx-wdt"; reg = <0x28 0x8>; }; };Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +6
-3@@ -16,9 +16,22 @@ maintainers: properties: compatible: - enum: - - brcm,bcm6345-wdt - - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + items: + - enum: + - brcm,bcm4908-wdt + - brcm,bcm6338-wdt + - brcm,bcm6345-wdt + - brcm,bcm6348-wdtDocumentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml maintainers: · line 33
Quoted 10 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +10
-0+ - brcm,bcm6848-wdt + - brcm,bcm6858-wdt + - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + - brcm,bcm60333-wdt + - brcm,bcm63138-wdt + - brcm,bcm63148-wdt + - brcm,bcm63268-wdt + - brcm,bcm63381-wdt + - brcm,bcm68360-wdt + - const: brcm,bcm63xx-wdtIs it really worthwhile to update all these DTs?:
Quoted 13 lines
arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6328.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6358.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6362.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6368.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7125.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7346.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7358.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7360.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7362.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7420.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7425.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7435.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt";
Quoted 1 line
I don't have problem handling that.
Even if the dts files above are updated, the driver still has to support the above case.
It's pointless to change this. We've already got 1000s of warnings to fix and 2000 bindings still to convert if you need something to do.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
I don't think so.
So what's the policy for such bindings then? How to select SoCs that should have their own bindings? How can I tell which should /borrow/ a binding instead?
The way it is supposed to work is the first implementation gets 'soc1-block'. When the 2nd implementation comes about, it gets 'soc2-block'. If soc2 implementation is 'the same' or a superset, then it should have a fallback to 'soc1-block'. Another way to test that is, "I want my existing s/w to work as-is with this new h/w". The process repeats on the next SoC, but you could be backwards compatible with soc1, soc2, both or none. Is that what you are asking?
If you are doing all this after the fact at once, then it can be a bit different in how you do compatibles.
In this case, I would make "brcm,bcm7038-wdt" the fallback to the rest (granted, I know nothing about these chips or the relationship between them), but you have to keep supporting "brcm,bcm7038-wdt". 6345 is up to you I guess as there aren't any upstream dts files using it. Florian might care.
Rob
Re: [PATCH V2] dt-bindings: watchdog: brcm,bcm7038: add more compatible strings
Quoted 100 lines · Rob Herring
Quoted 78 lines · Rafał Miłecki
Quoted 63 lines · Rob Herring
Quoted 49 lines · Rafał Miłecki
From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
This hardware block is used on almost all BCM63xx family chipsets and BCM4908 which reuses a lot of BCM63xx parts. Add relevant compatible strings and also include a generic one.
The only SoC with a different block I found is BCM6838 (thus not included in this change).
It may be worth noting that BCM6338, BCM6345, BCM6348 and BCM63268 don't include "SoftRst" register but that can be handled by drivers based on precise compatible string.
Signed-off-by Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>---
V2: Sort enum entries & update brcm,twd.yaml--- .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml | 2 +- .../bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml | 21 +++++++++++++++---- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,twd.yaml +1
-1@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ examples: #size-cells = <1>; watchdog@28 { - compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; + compatible = "brcm,bcm4908-wdt", "brcm,bcm63xx-wdt"; reg = <0x28 0x8>; }; };Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +6
-3@@ -16,9 +16,22 @@ maintainers: properties: compatible: - enum: - - brcm,bcm6345-wdt - - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + items: + - enum: + - brcm,bcm4908-wdt + - brcm,bcm6338-wdt + - brcm,bcm6345-wdt + - brcm,bcm6348-wdtDocumentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml maintainers: · line 33
Quoted 10 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/watchdog/brcm,bcm7038-wdt.yaml +10
-0+ - brcm,bcm6848-wdt + - brcm,bcm6858-wdt + - brcm,bcm7038-wdt + - brcm,bcm60333-wdt + - brcm,bcm63138-wdt + - brcm,bcm63148-wdt + - brcm,bcm63268-wdt + - brcm,bcm63381-wdt + - brcm,bcm68360-wdt + - const: brcm,bcm63xx-wdtIs it really worthwhile to update all these DTs?:
Quoted 13 lines
arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6328.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6358.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6362.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm6368.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7125.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7346.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7358.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7360.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7362.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7420.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7425.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt"; arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm7435.dtsi: compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt";Quoted 1 line
I don't have problem handling that.
Even if the dts files above are updated, the driver still has to support the above case.
It's pointless to change this. We've already got 1000s of warnings to fix and 2000 bindings still to convert if you need something to do.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
I don't think so.
So what's the policy for such bindings then? How to select SoCs that should have their own bindings? How can I tell which should /borrow/ a binding instead?
The way it is supposed to work is the first implementation gets 'soc1-block'. When the 2nd implementation comes about, it gets 'soc2-block'. If soc2 implementation is 'the same' or a superset, then it should have a fallback to 'soc1-block'. Another way to test that is, "I want my existing s/w to work as-is with this new h/w". The process repeats on the next SoC, but you could be backwards compatible with soc1, soc2, both or none. Is that what you are asking?
Quoted 8 lines
If you are doing all this after the fact at once, then it can be a bit different in how you do compatibles.
In this case, I would make "brcm,bcm7038-wdt" the fallback to the rest (granted, I know nothing about these chips or the relationship between them), but you have to keep supporting "brcm,bcm7038-wdt". 6345 is up to you I guess as there aren't any upstream dts files using it. Florian might care.
I think I got it now, thanks for explaining!