On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:52 PM Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > In any case, we can't really get rid of the first 13 instances though... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, we have the problem that we have DTBs out there that relies on > > > > > these compatibles, but as Jassi requests we'd have to start describing > > > > > the internal register layout in DT - which this binding purposefully > > > > > avoids. > > > > > > > > > Not these strings, but 'offset' and 'clock-name' as optional > > > > properties that new platforms can use. > > > > > > > > > > Relying on completely generic compatibles to match the driver and then > > > distinguish each platform using additional properties is exactly what > > > Qualcomm does downstream. The community has clarified countless times > > > that this is not the way to write DT bindings. > > > > > Yes, and I don't suggest it otherwise. For h/w quirks and > > extra/missing features, it does make sense to have different > > compatibles. > > > > But what you're suggesting assumes that they are the same and that we're > done implementing all the software for this block. The platform specific > compatible allows us to postpone that question. > It has been 4yrs and 13 platforms. The compatible strings are used only to match the hardcoded 'offset' values. Maybe we cross the bridge when we get to it. I think, when the drivers are enhanced and the kernel binary needs to be updated, we could update the dtb as well? Or is it too hard on these platforms? cheers.
