On 8/22/24 11:41 AM, Conor Dooley wrote: > 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. That would be also the case for this HDMI controller - need to check the specs for the newer RK3576 SoC, but I expect the syscons would be quite different when compared to RK3588, hence we should keep making use of the phandles.
