Hi Niklas, On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 1:20 PM Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Compatibles can come in two formats. Either "vendor,ip-soc" or > "vendor,soc-ip". Add a DT schema file documenting Renesas preferred > policy and enforcing it for all new compatibles, except few existing > patterns. > > Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > * Changes since v1 > - Split the "SoC agnostic compatibles" section into two to make it's > intent clearer. > - Improved the documentation for each group of compatibles. > - Reduced the number of regexp to create a larger target area. As > suggested by Krzysztof the goal is not to validate each SoC name but > check for the correct order of SoC-IP. Thanks for the update! > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/renesas-soc.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/renesas/renesas-soc.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Renesas SoC compatibles naming convention > + > +maintainers: > + - Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > + - Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > + > +description: | > + Guidelines for new compatibles for SoC blocks/components. > + When adding new compatibles in new bindings, use the format:: > + renesas,SoC-IP or renesas,Family-IP? > + > + For example:: > + renesas,r8a77965-csi2 > + > + When adding new compatibles to existing bindings, use the format in the > + existing binding, even if it contradicts the above. > + > +select: > + properties: > + compatible: > + pattern: "^renesas,.*-.*$" > + required: > + - compatible > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + oneOf: > + # Preferred naming style for compatibles of SoC components > + - pattern: "^renesas,emev2-[a-z0-9-]+$" > + - pattern: "^renesas,r(7s|8a|9a)[a-z0-9]+-[a-z0-9-]+$" > + - pattern: "^renesas,rcar-[a-z0-9-]+$" > + - pattern: "^renesas,rz[a-z0-9]*-[a-z0-9-]+$" > + - pattern: "^renesas,sh-[a-z0-9-]+$" > + - pattern: "^renesas,sh7[a-z0-9]+-[a-z0-9-]+$" I guess it's not worth adding rmobile and shmobile prefixes? > + # Fixed legacy compatibles > + # > + # List cannot grow with new bindings. > + - enum: > + - renesas,bsc-r8a73a4 > + - renesas,bsc-sh73a0 > + - renesas,dbsc-r8a73a4 > + - renesas,dbsc3-r8a7740 > + - renesas,em-gio > + - renesas,em-sti > + - renesas,em-uart Perhaps combine these three: "renesas,em-(gpio|sti|usrt)"? > + - renesas,fsi2-r8a7740 > + - renesas,fsi2-sh73a0 Likewise > + - renesas,hspi-r8a7778 > + - renesas,hspi-r8a7779 Etc. ;-) Now, how do I trigger violations? I added the following to a binding file: - enum: - renesas,bogus-r8a7778 - renesas,bogus-r8a7779 - const: renesas,bogus but nothing happened with "make dt_binding_check". I added the following to a DTS file: compatible = "renesas,bogus-r8a7778", "renesas,bogus"; again, nothing happened with "make dtbs_check". What am I missing? Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
