Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-binding: document QCOM platforms for CTCU device
From: Jie Gan
Date: Tue Feb 03 2026 - 04:43:33 EST
On 2/3/2026 5:31 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 03/02/2026 09:00, Jie Gan wrote:
On 2/3/2026 4:50 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 2/3/26 9:08 AM, Jie Gan wrote:
Document the platforms that fallback to using the qcom,sa8775p-ctcu
compatible for probing.
Signed-off-by: Jie Gan <jie.gan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight-ctcu.yaml | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight- ctcu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight- ctcu.yaml
index e002f87361ad..68853db52bef 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight-ctcu.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight-ctcu.yaml
@@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ properties:
oneOf:
- items:
- enum:
+ - qcom,glymur-ctcu
+ - qcom,hamoa-ctcu
+ - qcom,kaanapali-ctcu
+ - qcom,pakala-ctcu
Platforms with existing numeric compatibles should continue to use them,
so that the mess is somewhat containable
Sure Konrad. So for Pakala, I will change it back to qcom,sm8750-ctcu
Why do we need different compatibles for the others ? Are they not all compliant to the CTCU programming model ? i.e., sa8775p-ctcu ? or even,
a generic,
qcom,coresight-ctcu
Hi Suzuki,
The platforms here have two ETR devices, using same "data" in driver. We also have platforms only contain one ETR device and we need create a new data for these platforms.
I have proposed previously to have generic compatible for CTCU device but I got comment for preferring use platform-specific compatible.
Is that acceptable to use qcom,coresight-ctcu-v1 for TWO ETR devices platform and qcom,coresight-ctcu-v2 for ONE ETR device platform?
I think it's better to avoid annoying dt-binding patches for the CTCU device.
Thanks,
Jie
Suzuki
Thanks,
Jie
Konrad