On 30/04/2024 00:59, Witold Sadowski wrote: > >> >> Confusing wording aside, using the same generic compatible for different >> SoCs is what I trying to avoid. I don't mind there being a fallback >> compatible that's generic, but I want to see specific compatibles here for >> the individual SoCs. >> >> If you did actually mean that only the packaging is different between the >> devices, then I don't think you need specific compatibles for each >> different package, but you should have one for the SoC itself IMO. > > We can have SoC A, B with common xSPI block, and both of them can share > Same dtb node with compatible property "marvell,cn10k,xspi-nor" for > example. I don't think it will be beneficial to have different compatible > name for each different SoC, for example "marvell,t98,xspi-nor", if all > other parts will be the same. Or am I not correct? Please see writing bindings (or any presentation for DTS and bindings): you are expected to have SoC specific compatibles for every block in the SoC. There are many examples in recent bindings, so take a look there. Best regards, Krzysztof
