Hi Krzysztof
On 2/26/25 08:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 25/02/2025 17:09, Clement LE GOFFIC wrote:
On 2/25/25 14:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 25/02/2025 09:48, Clément Le Goffic wrote:
Add the hdp devicetree node for stm32mp25 SoC family
Signed-off-by: Clément Le Goffic <clement.legoffic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi
index f3c6cdfd7008..43aaed4fcf10 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi
@@ -918,6 +918,13 @@ package_otp@1e8 {
};
};
+ 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.
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).
regards
Alex
Something is here not matching - this change, this DTSI, top level
bindings or all of your SoC device/blocks bindings.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
