On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:44:05PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:35:39AM +0000, Naushir Patuck wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 07:28, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > 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. > > Following what we do with other SoCs, we could have > > compatible = "brcm,pispbe-bcm2712", "raspberrypi,pispbe"; > > However, that scheme is mostly used when SoC vendor license IP cores > from third parties. Here, while the SoC is indeed manufactured by > Broadcom, it's a Raspberry Pi-specific SoC. > > I don't have a personal preference. I'd be okay with what you propose here, I think it is a better reflection of what is going on than that in the original patch etc. Cheers, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
