On 19/02/2024 14:11:50+0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 2/17/24 09:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 16/02/2024 10:42, Michal Simek wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2/16/24 10:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > On 16/02/2024 09:51, Michal Simek wrote: > > > > > RTC has its own power domain on Xilinx Versal SOC that's why describe it as > > > > > optional property. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/xlnx,zynqmp-rtc.yaml | 3 +++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Versal is not described in this binding, is it? I see only one > > > > compatible. > > > > > > It is the same IP only as is on zynqmp with own power rail. > > > > Then you should have separate compatible, because they are not > > identical. It would also allow you to narrow the domains to versal and > > also require it (on versal). > > I can double check with HW guys but I am quite sure IP itself is exactly the > same. What it is different is that there is own power domain to it (not > shared one as is in zynqmp case). > > Also Linux is non secure sw and if secure firmware won't allow to change > setting of it it can't be required. I am just saying that Linux doesn't need > to be owner of any power domain that's why it shouldn't be required > property. I guess because the integration is different, you still need a differente compatible so you can forbid the property on non-Versal. > > Thanks, > Michal -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
