Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] dt-bindings: qcom-qce: Fix compatibles combinations for SM8150 and IPQ4019 SoCs

[Bhupesh Sharma]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 at 17:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 27/03/2023 13:49, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > Hi Bhupesh,
> >
> > On 3/22/23 13:45, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> >> Currently the compatible list available in 'qce' dt-bindings does not
> >> support SM8150 and IPQ4019 SoCs directly, leading to following
> >> 'dtbs_check' error:
> >>
> >>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150-sony-xperia-kumano-griffin.dtb:
> >>    crypto@1dfa000: compatible: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one must be fixed:
> >>      ['qcom,sm8150-qce', 'qcom,qce'] is too long
> >>      ['qcom,sm8150-qce', 'qcom,qce'] is too short
> >>
> >> Fix the same.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/qcom-qce.yaml | 6 ++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/qcom-qce.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/qcom-qce.yaml
> >> index e375bd981300..90ddf98a6df9 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/qcom-qce.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/qcom-qce.yaml
> >> @@ -24,6 +24,12 @@ properties:
> >>           deprecated: true
> >>           description: Kept only for ABI backward compatibility
> >>
> >> +      - items:
> >> +          - enum:
> >> +              - qcom,ipq4019-qce
> >> +              - qcom,sm8150-qce
> >> +          - const: qcom,qce
> >> +
> >
> > thank you for the fix, the change is correct, please apply the tag:
> >
> > Fixes: 00f3bc2db351 ("dt-bindings: qcom-qce: Add new SoC compatible strings for Qualcomm QCE IP")
> >
> > But let me ask you to split the "items" into two:
> >
> >        - items:
> >            - const: qcom,ipq4019-qce
> >            - const: qcom,qce
> >
> >        - items:
> >            - const: qcom,sm8150-qce
> >            - const: qcom,qce
> >
>
> Why splitting these? The enum is the preferred way usually, so why here
> do it differently?

Exactly, so our compatibles as per my patch can be :
"qcom,ipq4019-qce", "qcom,qce" or "qcom,sm8150-qce", "qcom,qce" which
is what we want to achieve as these are the base compatible versions
for further socs, with compatible strings as:

"qcom,<new-soc-with-crypto-same-as-ipq4019-qce", "qcom,ipq4019-qce",
"qcom,qce" , or
"qcom,<new-soc-with-crypto-same-as-sm8150-qce", "qcom,sm8150-qce", "qcom,qce"

Thanks,
Bhupesh