[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <09bc73fc-65bd-41b5-90fa-14cb0ff79e77@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 10:20:45 -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 8/13/2024 11:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/08/2024 22:03, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>
>> 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?
> You always need SoC specific compatible.
Got it. Will change to SoC specific then.
Thanks,
Melody
Powered by blists - more mailing lists