HI Conor:
Thanks for your reply.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 11:49 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 08:38:32PM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > Document the Power Management Unit system controller compatible for
> > Loongson-2K2000.
> >
> > This is a missing compatible, now we add it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Binbin Zhou <zhoubinbin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/soc/loongson/loongson,ls2k-pmc.yaml | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/loongson/loongson,ls2k-pmc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/loongson/loongson,ls2k-pmc.yaml
> > index da2dcfeebf12..7473c5659929 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/loongson/loongson,ls2k-pmc.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/loongson/loongson,ls2k-pmc.yaml
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ properties:
> > - enum:
> > - loongson,ls2k0500-pmc
> > - loongson,ls2k1000-pmc
> > + - loongson,ls2k2000-pmc
>
> Same thing here as the driver patch, the pmc on this newly added SoC
> appears to use the same codepaths as the existing ones. Does it share a
> programming model & should there be a fallback compatible here?
I noticed the guideline about fallback compatible:
"DO use fallback compatibles when devices are the same as or a subset
of prior implementations."
But in fact, ls2k0500/ls2k1000/ls2k2000 are independent, there is no subset.
Can we define a "loongson,ls2k-pmc" superset for each ls2k SoC
compatible fallback.
Such as:
compatible:
oneOf:
- enum:
- loongson,ls2k0500-pmc
- loongson,ls2k1000-pmc
- loongson,ls2k2000-pmc
- const: loongson,ls2k-pmc
- const: syscon
Thanks.
Binbin
>
> > - const: syscon
> >
> > reg:
> > --
> > 2.39.3
> >
