On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 09:16:43PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:16:32AM +0200, Thomas Bonnefille wrote: > > On 6/17/24 1:58 AM, Yixun Lan wrote: > > > On 18:47 Wed 12 Jun , Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > > > Is this change necessary? IIRC, the sdhci is the same across > > > > the whole series. > sorry for being late, I was busy in the past 2.5 month. Per my > understanding, the sdhci in cv1800b is the same as the one in > sg200x. Maybe I'm wrong, but this was my impression when I cooked > the sdhci driver patch for these SoCs. > > > > I tend to agree with Inochi here, if it's same across all SoC, then no bother to > > > split, it will cause more trouble to maintain.. > > > > > > > To be honest, I agree with this to, but as a specific compatible for the > > SG2002 was created in commit 849e81817b9b, I thought that the best practice > > was to use it. > > I'd like to take this chance to query DT maintainers: FWICT, in the past > even if the PLIC is the same between SoCs, adding a new compatible for > them seems a must. So when time goes on, the compatbile list would be > longer and longer, is it really necessary? Can we just use the existing > compatible string? > DT maintainers may answered the query in the past, if so, sorry for > querying again. For new integrations of an IP, yes, new specific compatibles please. New integrations may have different bugs etc, even if the IP itself is the same. If there's different SoCs that are the same die, but with elements fused off, then sure, use the same compatible. I expect the list of compatibles in the binding to grow rather large, but that is fine. No one SoC is going to do anything other than something like compatible = "renesas,$soc-plic", "andestech,corecomplex-plic", "riscv,plic"; which I think is perfectly fine.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
