On 13/08/2024 22:03, Melody Olvera wrote: > > > On 8/8/2024 4:00 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 07/08/2024 20:32, Melody Olvera wrote: >>> The EUD can more accurately be divided into two types; a secure type >>> which requires that certain registers be updated via scm call and a >>> nonsecure type which must access registers nonsecurely. Thus, change >>> the compatible strings to reflect secure and nonsecure eud usage. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml >>> index f2c5ec7e6437..476f92768610 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml >>> @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ properties: >>> compatible: >>> items: >>> - enum: >>> - - qcom,sc7280-eud >>> - - const: qcom,eud >>> + - qcom,secure-eud >>> + - qcom,eud >> Commit msg did not explain me why DT bindings rules are avoided here and >> you drop existing SoC specific compatible. >> >> This really does not look like having any sense at all, I cannot come up >> with logic behind dropping existing users. You could deprecate it, but >> then why exactly this device should have exception from generic bindings >> rule? > > Understood. I won't drop this compatible string. Is alright to add the > additional compatible as is? You always need SoC specific compatible. Best regards, Krzysztof
