On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 08:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 25/11/2022 15:22, Sam Protsenko wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 05:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Exynos5433 has several different SYSREGs, so use dedicated compatibles > >> for them. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Cc: Sriranjani P <sriranjani.p@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Chanho Park <chanho61.park@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > Just curious: what is the rationale for adding those more specific > > sysregs? AFAIR, e.g. in Exynos850, different SysReg instances have > > pretty much the same register layout. > > > > On Exynos5433 all these blocks have different registers. Are you saying > that Exynos850 has four (or more) sysregs which are exactly the same? > Same registers? Why would they duplicate it? > Ah, no, you are right. Just checked it, they are different. Just first couple of registers are similar between blocks, that's why I memorized it wrong. So as I understand, adding those new compatibles follows "describe HW, not a driver" rule? Because AFAIU, right now it'll fallback to "syscon" compatible anyway. > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
