[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46d0627d-877b-41f3-83f6-4c33b562f460@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:03:56 -0700
From: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Souradeep Chowdhury
<quic_schowdhu@...cinc.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
"Konrad
Dybcio" <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
"Krzysztof
Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"Greg
Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Trilok Soni
<quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala
<quic_satyap@...cinc.com>,
Elson Serrao <quic_eserrao@...cinc.com>
CC: <cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: eud: Update compatible
strings for eud
On 8/8/2024 4:00 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/08/2024 20:32, Melody Olvera wrote:
>> The EUD can more accurately be divided into two types; a secure type
>> which requires that certain registers be updated via scm call and a
>> nonsecure type which must access registers nonsecurely. Thus, change
>> the compatible strings to reflect secure and nonsecure eud usage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml
>> index f2c5ec7e6437..476f92768610 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml
>> @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ properties:
>> compatible:
>> items:
>> - enum:
>> - - qcom,sc7280-eud
>> - - const: qcom,eud
>> + - qcom,secure-eud
>> + - qcom,eud
> Commit msg did not explain me why DT bindings rules are avoided here and
> you drop existing SoC specific compatible.
>
> This really does not look like having any sense at all, I cannot come up
> with logic behind dropping existing users. You could deprecate it, but
> then why exactly this device should have exception from generic bindings
> rule?
Understood. I won't drop this compatible string. Is alright to add the
additional compatible as is?
Thanks,
Melody
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists