On 29/08/2023 05:21, Binbin Zhou wrote: > 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. We do not consider here ls2k0500/ls2k1000/ls2k2000, but PMC in each of them. If they are independent, why would they use the same interface? > 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 This is discouraged. Use 0500 as fallback. Best regards, Krzysztof
