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

[Melody Olvera]

On 8/13/2024 11:15 PM, 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.

Got it. Will change to SoC specific then.


Thanks,
Melody