[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+KGd2tumATzhJu0aZDZ0C1k9VGm5_xxTiE1RE2KHs0hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:51:40 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Patrick DELAUNAY <patrick.delaunay@...s.st.com>
Cc: Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Olivier Moysan <olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>,
Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>, Pascal Paillet <p.paillet@...s.st.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: st: use a correct pwr compatible for stm32mp15
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 6:42 AM Patrick DELAUNAY
<patrick.delaunay@...s.st.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 4/25/24 18:30, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 09:48:31AM +0200, Patrick Delaunay wrote:
> >> This patchset removes the unexpected comma in the PWR compatible
> >> "st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg" and uses a new compatible "st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg"
> >> in STM3MP15 device trees.
> > Why? I don't see any warnings from this. Yes, we wouldn't new cases
> > following this pattern, but I don't think it is worth maintaining
> > support for both strings. We're stuck with it. And the only way to
> > maintain forward compatibility is:
>
>
> Yes, no warning because the compatible string are not yet checked by tools.
What do you mean? There's a schema for it, so it is checked. I ran the
tools and there's no warning. If there was a warning, I'd fix the
tools in this case.
> I propose this patch to avoid the usage of this compatible for other SoC
> in STM32MP1 family.
>
>
> I see the invalid compatible string when I reviewed the U-Boot patch to
> add the PWR node for STM32MP13 family:
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20240319024534.103299-1-marex@denx.de/
>
Perhaps you should add SoC specific compatible string instead.
> So I prefer change the PWR binding before to have the same patch applied
> on Linux device tree
>
> > compatible = "st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg", "st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg";
>
>
> Yes, I will update the SoC patch with you proposal.
NO! We don't want to support that.
We have *tons* of examples in DT which don't follow recommended
patterns and we're stuck with them. This is no different. We can get
away with changing node names, but that's about it.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists