On 20/03/2024 09:50, Naushir Patuck wrote: >>>> >>>> Also, I'm still wondering about the RP1 part there in the compatible >>>> string. Is it necessary? The CFE is located in the RP1 co-processor, but >>>> is that relevant? >>>> >>>> Is there a versioning for the whole RP1 chip? Maybe it's going to the >>>> wrong direction if we use the board/SoC for this compatible name, as >>>> it's actually the RP1 where the CFE is located in, not the SoC. >>>> >>> >>> I don't really know the conversion required to answer this one. >>> Logically CFE is on RP1, so it makes sense to me to have "rp1" in the >>> string, but I will follow the judgment of the maintainers. >> >> Well, my thinking here was that if we have a register from which to read >> the version, and Raspberry Pi would create a new co-processor, RP2, with >> the same CFE. Would we then have "raspberrypi,rp1-cfe" and >> "raspberrypi,rp2-cfe", even if there are no changes? That would follow guidelines as expressed in writing bindings. >>Or would a plain >> "raspberrypi,cfe" do for both? >> >> In other words, if we don't need the "rp1" for versioning purposes, >> should it then be dropped? > > I agree with the above, you've convinced me that "raspberrypi,cfe" > might be the more appropriate string, or a convincing argument for > that to be a fallback string. Just follow the guidelines. If you come up with generic compatible alone, you could run to the same problems everyone is running. Best regards, Krzysztof
