Hi,
On 12/02/2024 11:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 12/02/2024 09:50, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ const: raspberrypi,pispbe
Nothing more specific? No model name, no version? It's quite generic
compatible which in general should not be allowed. I would assume that
at least version of Pi could denote some sort of a model... unless
version is detectable?
The driver matches on a version register and that should be enough to
handle quirks which are specific to an IP revision in the driver
itself.
Considering how minimal the integration with the SoC is (one clock, one
interrupt and one optional iommu reference) even if we'll get future
revisions of the SoC I don't think there will be any need to match on
a dedicated compatible for bindings-validation purposes.
However I understand that to be future-proof it's good practice to
allow a more flexible scheme, so we can have a generic fallback and a
revision-specific entry.
Would
compatible:
items:
- enum:
- raspberrypi,pipspbe-bcm2712
bcm2712 is manufactured by Broadcom, not Raspberry Pi, so it should be
rather Pi model?
Indeed, this is something I don't get. If the BE is in the bcm2712, is
it not a broadcom IP? Why is raspberrypi in the compatible name at all?
Naush, Dave?
- const: raspberrypi,pispbe
do in this case ?
Also, let's see what RPi think as they are certainly more informed
than me on what a good revision-specific match could be
I am fine with auto-detection, though.
...
+
+examples:
+ - |
+ #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
+
+ rpi1 {
soc {
Are you sure ? This will only ever live in the 'rp1' node.
What is "rp1" node? Does not look like a generic name.
I don't think this is right. RP1 is a separate chip, an IO controller,
on raspberrypi 5. BE is not in the RP1.
Tomi
