Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: arm: coresight-tnoc: Add standalone qcom,coresight-agtnoc compatible

[Jie Gan <jie.gan@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 7/1/2026 7:02 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 7/1/26 9:31 AM, Jie Gan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/1/2026 3:26 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2026 09:16, Jie Gan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/1/2026 2:57 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 09:53:41AM +0800, Jie Gan wrote:
>>>>>> The TNOC compatible previously only allowed the two-string AMBA form
>>>>>> "qcom,coresight-tnoc", "arm,primecell", which forces the device onto the
>>>>>> AMBA bus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Convert the compatible to a oneOf and add a standalone
>>>>>> "qcom,coresight-agtnoc" compatible alongside the existing AMBA form. The
>>>>>> standalone string carries no "arm,primecell" entry, so the device is
>>>>>> created on the platform bus instead of the AMBA bus.
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> AMBA primecell identification. The purpose of the new compatible is to
>>>> clearly distinguish this platform-specific case from the standard
>>>> AMBA-based implementation. Or shall I re-use the existing compatible
>>>> "qcom,coresight-tnoc" as platform standalone compatible?
>>>>
>>>> We already have a similar pattern for the interconnect TraceNoC device,
>>>> which uses the platform-specific compatible string qcom,coresight-itnoc.
>>> I do not see there a fake, duplicated compatible for the same device.
>>> Can you elaborate how is that relevant?
>>
>> Will fix it by removing AMBA related description.
>>
>> Shall I update the clock name from apb_pclk to apb as a platform device?
> 
> Why?

For the previous platform devices, we got comments to add the clock-name 
with "apb" instead of "apb_pclk".

Please check the qcom,coresight-ctcu.yaml and qcom,coresight-itnoc.yaml

Thanks,
Jie

> 
> Konrad