[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d4bf02a-4c0a-4051-bed2-8a089d310ad2@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 07:58:36 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Harshit Shah <hshah@...ado.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Jan Kotas <jank@...ence.com>
Cc: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"soc@...ts.linux.dev" <soc@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] arm64: dts: axiado: Add initial support for AX3000
SoC and eval board
On 27/06/2025 02:47, Harshit Shah wrote:
>>> Is this name look good?
>> No, all compatibles for SoC must be SoC specific. Take any recent
>> Qualcomm SM8650 or SM8750 as example.
>>
>> I asked to read writing bindings. Did you read it? It covers exactly
>> this case.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>
>
> Extremely sorry for the last reply. It got messed up in formatting,
> re-sending the same.
>
>
> Thank you for the references.
>
> Yes, I missed the point in the writing bindings doc. It says the following:
>
>
> "For sub-blocks/components of bigger device (e.g. SoC blocks) use rather
> device-based compatible (e.g. SoC-based compatible),
>
> instead of custom versioning of that component. For example use
> "vendor,soc1234-i2c" instead of "vendor,i2c-v2"."
>
>
> (Ref:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.15.3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst#L79)
>
>
> # We need to add the full SoC name instead of versioning. e.g.
> compatible should contain full SoC name ax3000.
Yes.
>
>
> Another example, we have seen is the designware I2C IP is used by MSCC,
> ocelot chipset.
>
> It is showing as below in the following:
> (https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16-rc3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/snps,designware-i2c.yaml)
>
>
> i2c@...400 {
>
> compatible = "mscc,ocelot-i2c", "snps,designware-i2c";
>
> reg = <0x100400 0x100>, <0x198 0x8>;
>
> pinctrl-0 = <&i2c_pins>;
>
> pinctrl-names = "default";
>
> interrupts = <8>;
>
> clocks = <&ahb_clk>;
>
> };
>
>
> # We will add this compatible in the existing driver
> (drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c) &
>
> bindings (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/cdns,uart.yaml) since
> the IP is common.
>
>
> As per the above examples, I see two types of bindings.
>
> 1. compatible = "axiado,ax3000-uart", "cdns,uart-r1p12"
This one. Thank you.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists