On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:01:34AM +0200, Heiko Stübner wrote: > @Conor: just for me, did some shift happen in our understanding of dt- > best-practices in terms of syscon via phandle vs. syscon via compatible? > > Because Rockchip boards are referencing their GRFs via phandes forever > but similar to the soc vs non-soc node thing, I'd like to stay on top of > best-practices ;-) If IP blocks, and thus drivers, are going to be reused between devices, using the phandles makes sense given that it is unlikely that syscon nodes can make use of fallback compatibles due to bits within that "glue" changing between devices. It also makes sense when there are multiple instances of an IP on the device, which need to use different syscons. My goal is to ask people why they are using these type of syscons phandle properties, cos often they are not required at all - for example with clocks where you effectively need a whole new driver for every single soc and having a phandle property buys you nothing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
