Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: eud: Update compatible strings for eud

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 14.08.2024 8:15 AM, 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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>   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.

Melody, is there any way to discover (that won't crash the board if we
guess wrong) whether secure accessors are needed?

Konrad