On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 09:41, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Document the bindings for ETMv4.4 and later with only system register > access. > > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt > index d711676b4a51..cfe47bdda728 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt > @@ -34,9 +34,13 @@ its hardware characteristcs. > Program Flow Trace Macrocell: > "arm,coresight-etm3x", "arm,primecell"; > > - - Embedded Trace Macrocell (version 4.x): > + - Embedded Trace Macrocell (version 4.x), with memory mapped access. > "arm,coresight-etm4x", "arm,primecell"; > > + - Embedded Trace Macrocell (version 4.4 and later) with system > + register access only. > + "arm,coresight-etm-v4.4"; Any version of ETM can implement register access - including those pre ETM 4.4. Perhaps the new name should simply reflect sys reg access rather than a version. Given that the two compatibility strings should be mutually exclusive for a given device, should the bindings doc (or at least the etm4x component part) be re-written into the .yaml format so that this can be enforced? Regards Mike > + > - Coresight programmable Replicator : > "arm,coresight-dynamic-replicator", "arm,primecell"; > > -- > 2.24.1 > -- Mike Leach Principal Engineer, ARM Ltd. Manchester Design Centre. UK
