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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

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@quicinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>   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.

Best regards,
Krzysztof