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

[Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@quicinc.com>]

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?

Thanks,
Melody
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>