On 5/13/24 11:56 AM, Patrick Delaunay wrote:
Add new compatible "st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg" for STM32MP13 SoC family.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delaunay@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v3:
- Replace oneOf/const by enum; solve the V2 issues for dt_binding_check
Changes in v2:
- update for Rob review, only add compatible for STM32MP13 family
.../devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml
index c9586d277f41..c766f0a15a31 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml
@@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ maintainers:
properties:
compatible:
- const: st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg
+ enum:
+ - st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg
+ - st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg
Should the st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg be treated as fallback compatible for
st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg or not ?
In other words, should the DT contain:
compatible = "st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg", "st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg";
or
compatible = "st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg";
? Which one is preferable ?
I think the former one, since the MP13 PWR block could also be operated
by older MP1(5) PWR block driver(s) without any adverse effects, except
the SD IO domain configuration won't be available, right ?
