On 8/13/2024 11:15 PM, 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.
Got it. Will change to SoC specific then.
Thanks,
Melody
