Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: firmware: scm: Add QDU1000/QRU1000 compatibles

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 01:02, Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/1/2022 4:25 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 01/10/2022 05:06, Melody Olvera wrote:
> >> Add compatibles for scm driver for QDU1000 and QRU1000 platforms.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml | 2 ++
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml
> >> index c5b76c9f7ad0..b47a5dda3c3e 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml
> >> @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ properties:
> >>            - qcom,scm-sm8250
> >>            - qcom,scm-sm8350
> >>            - qcom,scm-sm8450
> >> +          - qcom,scm-qdu1000
> >> +          - qcom,scm-qru1000

I think after seeing all the patchsets it's time to ask the following
question. Do we really need a duplicate compatibility families:
qdu1000 vs qru1000? I'd suggest using a single set of compatibile
strings in most of the cases.
Settle down onto a single name (qdu,qru, qdru, whatever) and define
distinct compat strings only when there is an actual difference?

E.g .we don't have separate compatible strings for all the sda660,
apq8096, etc. unless this is required by the corresponding hardware
block not being compatible with corresponding sdm or msm counterpart.

> > Items should be ordered alphabetically.
> Will fix.
> >
> >>            - qcom,scm-qcs404
> >>        - const: qcom,scm
> > Patch is incomplete. Missing changes for allOf.
> Will add.
> >
> >>
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
>
> Thanks,
>
> Melody
>


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry