On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:25:17AM -0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 02/11/2022 23:44, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 06:12:29PM -0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 27/10/2022 23:41, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >>> Add EPSS L3 compatibles for sm8350 and sc8280xp, but while at it also > >>> introduce generic compatible for both qcom,osm-l3 and qcom,epss-l3. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> .../bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml | 22 +++++++++++++------ > >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml > >>> index bf538c0c5a81..ae0995341a78 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml > >>> @@ -16,13 +16,21 @@ description: > >>> > >>> properties: > >>> compatible: > >>> - enum: > >>> - - qcom,sc7180-osm-l3 > >>> - - qcom,sc7280-epss-l3 > >>> - - qcom,sc8180x-osm-l3 > >>> - - qcom,sdm845-osm-l3 > >>> - - qcom,sm8150-osm-l3 > >>> - - qcom,sm8250-epss-l3 > >>> + oneOf: > >>> + items: > >> > >> oneOf expects a list, so this should be " - items" > >> > > > > Ahh, thanks. Must have missed running the dt_binding_check on this one. > > > >>> + - enum: > >>> + - qcom,sc7180-osm-l3 > >>> + - qcom,sc8180x-osm-l3 > >>> + - qcom,sdm845-osm-l3 > >>> + - qcom,sm8150-osm-l3 > >>> + - const: qcom,osm-l3 > >> > >> The concept is good, but are you sure all SoCs will be compatible with > >> generic osm-l3? > > > > Per the current implementation yes, worst case if one or more of them isn't the > > more specific compatible can be used to alter the behavior of that platform. > > > >> Why not using dedicated compatible of one soc, e.g. the > >> oldest here? We already did like that for BWMON, DMA and few others. > >> > > > > Because if we say compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-osm-l3", "qcom,sdm845-osm-l3" and > > there is a quirk needed for "qcom,sdm845-osm-l3" we're forced to add a "special > > case" every other *-osm-l3 in the driver. > > > > This way we can have a generic implementation for the qcom,osm-l3 and if we > > realize that we need to quirk something for the oldest platform, we can do so > > without affecting the others. > > True. This also means we do not really know which one is the generic > implementation :) > There currently is an implementation without platform specific quirks, I call that the generic implementation and suggest that we refer to that using "qcom,osm-l3". If we instead were to use sdm845 as the generic compatible, and there turns out to be a need for a quirk for this platform, you: 1) no longer have a generic implementation, but 4 platform-specific implementations 2) have 3 platforms claiming to be compatible with the quirked (now specialized) implementation, which they clearly aren't anymore Therefor I favor using generic names for generic compatibles. Regards, Bjorn
