Re: [PATCH 01/16] dt-bindings: arm: renesas: Document Renesas RZ/G2UL SoC

[Lad, Prabhakar]

Hi Geert,

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:29 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 6:54 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:23 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 9:23 PM Lad Prabhakar
> > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Add device tree bindings documentation for Renesas RZ/G2UL SoC.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Thanks for your patch!
> > >
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/renesas.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/renesas.yaml
> > > > @@ -302,6 +302,12 @@ properties:
> > > >                - renesas,rzn1d400-db # RZN1D-DB (RZ/N1D Demo Board for the RZ/N1D 400 pins package)
> > > >            - const: renesas,r9a06g032
> > > >
> > > > +      - description: RZ/G2UL (R9A07G043)
> > > > +        items:
> > > > +          - enum:
> > > > +              - renesas,r9a07g043u11 # Single Cortex-A55 RZ/G2UL
> > >
> > > Is there any specific reason you're including the final "1", unlike the
> > > RZ/G2{L,LC} binding?
> > >
> > To be consistent with the RZ/G2L family of SoC's "1" is appended to
> > the compatible string.
>
My bad, the reason for adding 1 in the end was there are two variants
of RZ/G2UL [1].  For the next respin I'll include renesas,r9a07g043u12
too.

> No, for RZ/G2L you have:
>
>     renesas,r9a07g044c1 for r9a07g044c12
>     renesas,r9a07g044c2 for r9a07g044c22
>     renesas,r9a07g044l1 for r9a07g044l13 and r9a07g044l14
>     renesas,r9a07g044l2 for r9a07g044l23 and r9a07g044l24
>
> i.e. the compatible value lacks the final digit.
>
> For RZ/G2UL, I do not know if we have to distinguish between
> r9a07g043u11 and r9a07g043u12.
>
Some IP blocks are missing in type2 compared to type1. And at the
higher level we might want to know the exact SoC type the board is
built ?

> > > As RZ/G2UL is always single-core, perhaps this compatible value can be
> > > dropped?
> > >
> > Do agree with you.
>
> In light of the continued discussion for [PATCH 02/16], perhaps it's
> good to keep it anyway?
>
Yes will keep the compatible string.

[1] https://www.renesas.com/us/en/products/microcontrollers-microprocessors/rz-arm-based-high-end-32-64-bit-mpus/rzg2ul-general-purpose-microprocessors-single-core-arm-cortex-a55-10-ghz-cpu-2ch-giga-bit-ethernet

Cheers,
Prabhakar