Hi Tomi,
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 07:28, Tomi Valkeinen
<tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/02/2024 11:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 12/02/2024 09:50, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> >
> >>>> +properties:
> >>>> + compatible:
> >>>> + const: raspberrypi,pispbe
> >>>
> >>> Nothing more specific? No model name, no version? It's quite generic
> >>> compatible which in general should not be allowed. I would assume that
> >>> at least version of Pi could denote some sort of a model... unless
> >>> version is detectable?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The driver matches on a version register and that should be enough to
> >> handle quirks which are specific to an IP revision in the driver
> >> itself.
> >>
> >> Considering how minimal the integration with the SoC is (one clock, one
> >> interrupt and one optional iommu reference) even if we'll get future
> >> revisions of the SoC I don't think there will be any need to match on
> >> a dedicated compatible for bindings-validation purposes.
> >>
> >> However I understand that to be future-proof it's good practice to
> >> allow a more flexible scheme, so we can have a generic fallback and a
> >> revision-specific entry.
> >>
> >> Would
> >>
> >> compatible:
> >> items:
> >> - enum:
> >> - raspberrypi,pipspbe-bcm2712
> >
> > bcm2712 is manufactured by Broadcom, not Raspberry Pi, so it should be
> > rather Pi model?
>
> Indeed, this is something I don't get. If the BE is in the bcm2712, is
> it not a broadcom IP? Why is raspberrypi in the compatible name at all?
>
> Naush, Dave?
The Backend (and Frontend) IP are both owned solely by Raspberry Pi,
and the BE is instantiated on the BCM2712. So I think "raspberry" in
the compatible string is correct here.
>
> >> - const: raspberrypi,pispbe
> >>
> >> do in this case ?
> >>
> >> Also, let's see what RPi think as they are certainly more informed
> >> than me on what a good revision-specific match could be
> >
> > I am fine with auto-detection, though.
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>> +
> >>>> +examples:
> >>>> + - |
> >>>> + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> >>>> +
> >>>> + rpi1 {
> >>>
> >>> soc {
> >>>
> >>
> >> Are you sure ? This will only ever live in the 'rp1' node.
> >
> > What is "rp1" node? Does not look like a generic name.
>
> I don't think this is right. RP1 is a separate chip, an IO controller,
> on raspberrypi 5. BE is not in the RP1.
Oops, missed this. Yes, I think it should be the "soc" node.
Regards,
Naush
>
> Tomi
>
