On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:29 PM <Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 27/07/2022 14:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > On 27/07/2022 14:56, Biju Das wrote: > >>> > >>> Then it is not the same SoC! Same means same, identical. CPU > >>> architecture is one of the major differences, which means it is not the > >>> same. > >> > >> Family SoC(R9A07G043) is at top level. Then it has different SoCId for taking care of > >> differences for SoC based on ARMV8 and RISC-V which has separate compatible like > >> r9a07g043u11 and r9a07g043f01? > > > > This does not answer the concern - it's not the same SoC. The most > > generic compatible denotes the most common part. I would argue that > > instruction set and architecture are the most important differences. > > None of ARMv8 SoCs (SoCs, not CPU cores) have "arm,armv8" compatible and > > you went even more - you combined two architectures in the most generic > > compatibles. > > I would have to agree with this. The most "core" part of the SoC is > its architecture and while the peripheral IPs might be the same etc > & the Renesas marketing team might have put them in the same "family", > for the purposes of a device tree I don't see how having a common > fallback makes sense. > Agreed, I was following the same which we have done on the ARM64 schema. I am waiting on Geert's feedback on whether we should follow as Krzysztof suggested ie to have renesas,smarc-evk-r9a07g043f01 - for the board renesas,9a07g043f01 - for the SoC Cheers, Prabhakar
