From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (mx07-00178001.pphosted.com [185.132.182.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81B0A23536F; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 18:10:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.132.182.106 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740593432; cv=none; b=HU78Hlq+8Ut8MOe5OqBgY0DVpFTRvjJoE99UbsCsIZH1HHCgA6krAer5SXfxrOKwclkQPtMKO4uKWtMMqWL31pZHW7g1sXnpV0e4/y6E8PVpMqLxCNS6G2A1/tPUwXTg9vcocYgKULiN6xHy8rm4C857rgkBbyPRBz6QB0TiwhI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740593432; c=relaxed/simple; bh=P8EWsV4hQ3wrom+Ukqqd/U/Ho0Oxrn3j9NkCRkOJMi0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:CC:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=FOaJHt4XoZaWbb42Z+8+l1u8TQ3W8sdv300pqs92oIZZVGmSX2i/3lHkYPUa3EW2ch9grDyQcuqKBzOFQ6lM3ArgKj8J3xUQrsyc8KqgjCG1h2pTy16nDYDcijVcWAXmOyvvMeLn5FtNUb1XjVpe+C/t3fHtfHkeU35NqyH7CX8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=foss.st.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=foss.st.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=foss.st.com header.i=@foss.st.com header.b=3yKEGCAk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.132.182.106 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=foss.st.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=foss.st.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=foss.st.com header.i=@foss.st.com header.b="3yKEGCAk" Received: from pps.filterd (m0288072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 51QFHewT022188; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:10:15 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foss.st.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=selector1; bh= rG1C6cXlzhh7ZHVodv74JTH3XP7VRDVgNV9VI18sWQA=; b=3yKEGCAk+JFFurwh A/VoQvxQfCKgGyaGnzIscwH3s+avLqtQF9jyGAM7Q8HJo1+YCqdsXZAMdn8BP6u/ CeXYiF+QLc6DLfZWZr0z2+xXkt5/4va74qko67jNOQgFE6cDu8BFXGe+0EmG7kSY cTEDQGf4LYCbfka9Mb/BNB7kEMSiZon8GDaI0vs3xl8EZtCv4EiqcP1gjNirbfk2 qWlBZj0kXIRiWf8ZTnl0oKuRrc/VFvJ4rDL7FbLciaLu+5Xcv16F26YZY2+P5bAe 6zbx1fpBdjFOxQQruEsjc5SyOeM+AMyApBDu9C1ch9uB4RUvlydBagM5dlqsKkat 06y4xA== Received: from beta.dmz-ap.st.com (beta.dmz-ap.st.com [138.198.100.35]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 451psrea92-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:10:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from euls16034.sgp.st.com (euls16034.sgp.st.com [10.75.44.20]) by beta.dmz-ap.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 86625400C8; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:09:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (shfdag1node1.st.com [10.75.129.69]) by euls16034.sgp.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 10BB54FF132; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:54:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.48.86.79] (10.48.86.79) by SHFDAG1NODE1.st.com (10.75.129.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.39; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:54:12 +0100 Message-ID: <248f63ff-b6ec-4f58-8a96-7aee2fcd6038@foss.st.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:54:11 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] ARM: dts: stm32: add Hardware debug port (HDP) on stm32mp25 From: Alexandre TORGUE To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Clement LE GOFFIC , Linus Walleij , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Maxime Coquelin , Bartosz Golaszewski CC: , , , , References: <20250225-hdp-upstream-v1-0-9d049c65330a@foss.st.com> <20250225-hdp-upstream-v1-7-9d049c65330a@foss.st.com> <418a80a9-8c08-4dd1-bf49-1bd7378321aa@kernel.org> <988667a4-4bc0-4594-8dfd-a7b652b149b2@foss.st.com> <55beb3e7-65ac-4145-adae-fb064378c78d@kernel.org> <8cdc7e52-f9e2-4fc9-be68-0dd72a25ee1b@foss.st.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <8cdc7e52-f9e2-4fc9-be68-0dd72a25ee1b@foss.st.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: SHFCAS1NODE2.st.com (10.75.129.73) To SHFDAG1NODE1.st.com (10.75.129.69) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1057,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2025-02-26_04,2025-02-26_01,2024-11-22_01 On 2/26/25 16:30, Alexandre TORGUE wrote: > > > On 2/26/25 16:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 26/02/2025 10:33, Alexandre TORGUE wrote: >>>>>>> +        hdp: pinctrl@44090000 { >>>>>>> +            compatible = "st,stm32mp-hdp"; >>>>>> >>>>>> So here again - you have stm32mp251 SoC, but use entirely different >>>>>> compatible. >>>>> >>>>> Ok so I will use "st,stm32mp15-hdp" >>>> >>>> >>>> This means this is stm32mp15 SoC. I do not see such SoC on list of your >>>> SoCs in bindings. What's more, there are no bindings for other SoC >>>> components for stm32mp15! >>> >>> Yes stm32mp15 is not a "real SoC". I agree that at the beginning of the >>> STM32 story we didn't have a clear rule/view to correctly naming our >>> compatible. We tried to improve the situation to avoid compatible like >>> "st,stm32", "st,stm32mp" or "st,stm32mp1". So we introduced >>> "st,stm32mp13", "st,stm32mp15" or "st,stm32mp25" for new drivers. So yes >>> it represents a SoC family and not a real SoC. We haven't had much >>> negative feedback it. >>> >>> But, if it's not clean to do it in this way, lets define SoC compatible >>> for any new driver. >> >> Compatibles are for hardware. >> >>> For the HDP case it is: "st,stm32mp157" and used for STM32MP13, >>> STM32MP15 end STM32MP25 SoC families (if driver is the same for all >>> those SoCs). >> >> No, it's three compatibles, because you have three SoCs. BTW, writing >> bindings (and online resources and previous reviews and my talks) are >> saying that, so we do not ask for anything new here, anything different. >> At least not new when looking at last 5 years, because 10 years ago many >> rules were relaxed... > > So adding 3 times the same IP in 3 different SoCs implies to have 3 > different compatibles. So each time we use this same IP in a new SoC, we > have to add a new compatible. My (wrong) understanding was: as we have > the same IP (same hardware) in each SoC we have the same compatible (and > IP integration differences (clocks, interrupts) are handled by DT > properties. Just to complete, reading the Linux kernel doc, as device are same we will use fallbacks like this: MP15: compatible = "st,stm32mp151-hdp"; MP13: compatible = "st,stm32mp131-hdp", "st,stm32mp151-hdp"; MP25: compatible = "st,stm32mp251-hdp", "st,stm32mp151-hdp"; > >> >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof