On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 04:34:20PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > 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 ? Aye, the fallback sounds like what should be being used here, especially if another user of the DT might not need to implement the extra domain.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
