Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: fpga: stratix10: add support for Agilex5

["Romli, Khairul Anuar" <khairul.anuar.romli@altera.com>]

On 12/11/2025 2:00 am, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 05:03:56PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 03:48:31PM +0800, Khairul Anuar Romli wrote:
>>> The Agilex 5 SoC FPGA manager introduces updated hardware features and
>>> register maps that require explicit binding support to enable correct
>>> initialization and control through the FPGA manager subsystem.
>>>
>>> It allows FPGA manager drivers detect and configure Agilex 5 FPGA managers
>>> properly. This changes also keep device tree bindings up to date with
>>> hardware platforms changes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Khairul Anuar Romli <khairul.anuar.romli@altera.com>
>>> ---
>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/fpga/intel,stratix10-soc-fpga-mgr.yaml   | 1 +
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/intel,stratix10-soc-fpga-mgr.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/intel,stratix10-soc-fpga-mgr.yaml
>>> index 6e536d6b28a9..b531522cca07 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/intel,stratix10-soc-fpga-mgr.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/intel,stratix10-soc-fpga-mgr.yaml
>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ properties:
>>>       enum:
>>>         - intel,stratix10-soc-fpga-mgr
>>>         - intel,agilex-soc-fpga-mgr
>>> +      - intel,agilex5-soc-fpga-mgr
>>
>> I'm not quite familar about dt rules, but since these are all software
>> defined strings, do we really have to write down every version even if
>> they behave exactly the same? Seems a waste of time.
> 
> Sort of. You "have" to add a new string to the binding, because there
> may end up being bugs that only manifest in one SoC etc, and having the
> string pre-emptively is helpful. I'm not familiar with these particular
> fpga managers, but if it has some way of identifying it's own version,
> then doing that dynamically instead of having specific compatibles is
> often permitted.
> 
> What is a waste of time is adding it to the driver. When the driver diff
> looks like:
> |--- a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> |+++ b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> |@@ -448,6 +448,7 @@ static void s10_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> | static const struct of_device_id s10_of_match[] = {
> |        {.compatible = "intel,stratix10-soc-fpga-mgr"},
> |        {.compatible = "intel,agilex-soc-fpga-mgr"},
> |+       {.compatible = "intel,agilex5-soc-fpga-mgr"},
> |        {},
> | };
> 
> That's a solid indicator that there should be a fallback compatible used
> here, as the devices behave identically. A devicetree node would then
> contain
> compatible = "intel,agilex5-soc-fpga-mgr", "intel,agilex-soc-fpga-mgr";
> instead of
> compatible = "intel,agilex5-soc-fpga-mgr";
> and the driver would match on the second compatible in the list.
> 
> pw-bot: changes-requested
> 
> Cheers,
> Conor.

Thanks for giving the proper way to handle the new string added in the 
DT and bindings.

I will drop the change in the driver as suggested and add thew fallback 
string in the device tree in the next version.

Thanks.

Regards,
Khairul