On 13/08/2024 22:03, Melody Olvera wrote:
You always need SoC specific compatible.
On 8/8/2024 4:00 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 07/08/2024 20:32, Melody Olvera wrote:Understood. I won't drop this compatible string. Is alright to add the
The EUD can more accurately be divided into two types; a secure typeCommit msg did not explain me why DT bindings rules are avoided here and
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
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?
additional compatible as is?