On 26/02/2025 10:33, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
>>>>> + hdp: pinctrl@44090000 {
>>>>> + compatible = "st,stm32mp-hdp";
>>>>
>>>> So here again - you have stm32mp251 SoC, but use entirely different
>>>> compatible.
>>>
>>> Ok so I will use "st,stm32mp15-hdp"
>>
>>
>> This means this is stm32mp15 SoC. I do not see such SoC on list of your
>> SoCs in bindings. What's more, there are no bindings for other SoC
>> components for stm32mp15!
>
> Yes stm32mp15 is not a "real SoC". I agree that at the beginning of the
> STM32 story we didn't have a clear rule/view to correctly naming our
> compatible. We tried to improve the situation to avoid compatible like
> "st,stm32", "st,stm32mp" or "st,stm32mp1". So we introduced
> "st,stm32mp13", "st,stm32mp15" or "st,stm32mp25" for new drivers. So yes
> it represents a SoC family and not a real SoC. We haven't had much
> negative feedback it.
>
> But, if it's not clean to do it in this way, lets define SoC compatible
> for any new driver.
Compatibles are for hardware.
> For the HDP case it is: "st,stm32mp157" and used for STM32MP13,
> STM32MP15 end STM32MP25 SoC families (if driver is the same for all
> those SoCs).
No, it's three compatibles, because you have three SoCs. BTW, writing
bindings (and online resources and previous reviews and my talks) are
saying that, so we do not ask for anything new here, anything different.
At least not new when looking at last 5 years, because 10 years ago many
rules were relaxed...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
