Hi Tomi
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 09:28:33AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> 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.
>
Ah yes indeed, bad copy and paste from me. I'll s/rpi/soc as suggested
by Krzysztof
> Tomi
>
>
