On 25/02/2025 15:57, Fabrice Gasnier wrote: > On 2/25/25 13:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 07:01:43PM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote: >>> pwm: >>> type: object >>> additionalProperties: false >>> >>> properties: >>> compatible: >>> - const: st,stm32-pwm-lp >>> + enum: >>> + - st,stm32-pwm-lp >>> + - st,stm32mp25-pwm-lp >>> >>> "#pwm-cells": >>> const: 3 >>> @@ -69,7 +76,9 @@ properties: >>> >>> properties: >>> compatible: >>> - const: st,stm32-lptimer-counter >>> + enum: >>> + - st,stm32-lptimer-counter >>> + - st,stm32mp25-lptimer-counter >> >> Driver changes suggest many of these are compatible. Why isn't this expressed? > > Hi Krzysztof, > > The Low Power Timer (LPTIM) hardware isn't fully backward compatible. > > At driver level, as indicated in the cover-letter, same feature list as > on STM32MP1x is supported currently. This is probably what makes it look > like it's compatible, but it's not fully compatible. I don't understand. Same feature list is supported means fully compatible, but you say not fully compatible. You are aware that compatible means not the same? > > The hardware controller is a bit different. Some registers/bits has been > revisited among other things. This is the purpose for these new compatibles. We do not discuss new compatibles. We discuss lack of compatibility. If registers/bits are changed, how existing driver can work with same ID table? Best regards, Krzysztof
