On 14.08.2024 8:15 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 13/08/2024 22:03, Melody Olvera wrote:Melody, is there any way to discover (that won't crash the board if we
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?
guess wrong) whether secure accessors are needed?