[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <574df1fe-7562-40a2-b7bf-7b4b5d3901ba@foss.st.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 16:28:09 +0200
From: Patrick DELAUNAY <patrick.delaunay@...s.st.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
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
Hi,
On 4/26/24 14:51, Rob Herring wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, I am no clear
the tools (dts check or check patch) don't check the recommendation for
compatible name:
vendor specific string in the form|<vendor>,[<device>-]<usage>|
| => for me: compatible should have only one comma,
used as separator between vendor prefix end the device
identifier.|
But it is normal because existing device tree have a already lot a
strange compatible
>> 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.
yes it is a solution.
>
>> 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.
Even mark the old binding deprecated is not acceptable:
properties:
compatible:
- const: st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg
+ oneOf:
+ - const: st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg
+ - items:
+ - const: st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg
+ - const: st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg
+ deprecated: true
I understood.
>
> 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.
Ok, I am stucked with this compatible for STM32MP15 = "st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg"
and I have no elegant solution to solved it.
So I will change my serie to add a new compatible for STM32MP13
"st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg"
>
> Rob
Regards
Patrick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists