On 04/10/2022 00:14, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 01:02, Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 10/1/2022 4:25 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 01/10/2022 05:06, Melody Olvera wrote: >>>> Add compatibles for scm driver for QDU1000 and QRU1000 platforms. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml >>>> index c5b76c9f7ad0..b47a5dda3c3e 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml >>>> @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ properties: >>>> - qcom,scm-sm8250 >>>> - qcom,scm-sm8350 >>>> - qcom,scm-sm8450 >>>> + - qcom,scm-qdu1000 >>>> + - qcom,scm-qru1000 > > I think after seeing all the patchsets it's time to ask the following > question. Do we really need a duplicate compatibility families: > qdu1000 vs qru1000? I'd suggest using a single set of compatibile > strings in most of the cases. > Settle down onto a single name (qdu,qru, qdru, whatever) and define > distinct compat strings only when there is an actual difference? > > E.g .we don't have separate compatible strings for all the sda660, > apq8096, etc. unless this is required by the corresponding hardware > block not being compatible with corresponding sdm or msm counterpart. > I am not that fluent in Qualcomm naming, so let me ask - what are the differences between QDU and QRU? For compatible (and/or similar) devices the general recommendation is to have specific compatibles followed by fallback. Even if devices are very, very, very similar, usually the recommendation still stays. Best regards, Krzysztof
