[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2cc638ca-0add-4c8c-b844-606e22dbd253@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 12:03:28 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
MandyJH Liu <mandyjh.liu@...iatek.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8365: use a specific SCPSYS
compatible
On 20/05/2024 11:55, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 18/05/24 23:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>> SoCs should use dedicated compatibles for each of their syscon nodes to
>> precisely describe the block. Using an incorrect compatible does not
>> allow to properly match/validate children of the syscon device. Replace
>> SYSCFG compatible, which does not have children, with a new dedicated
>> one for SCPSYS block.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>
> Technically, that's not a SCPSYS block, but called SYSCFG in MT8365, but the
> meaning and the functioning is the same, so it's fine for me.
So there are two syscfg blocks? With exactly the same set of registers
or different?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists