On 14.08.2024 8:15 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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. Melody, is there any way to discover (that won't crash the board if we guess wrong) whether secure accessors are needed? Konrad
