On 02/04/2022 21:05, Biju Das wrote: > Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski, > > Thanks for the feedback. > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: arm: renesas: Document Renesas >> RZ/G2UL SMARC EVK >> >> On 02/04/2022 09:32, Biju Das wrote: >>> Document the Renesas SMARC EVK board which is based on the Renesas >>> RZ/G2UL Type-1 (R9A07G043U11) SoC. The SMARC EVK consists of an >>> RZ/G2UL Type-1 SoM module and a SMARC carrier board. The SoM module >>> sits on top of the carrier board. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> V4: >>> * new patch >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/renesas.yaml | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/renesas.yaml >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/renesas.yaml >>> index fa435d6fda77..f61807103867 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/renesas.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/renesas.yaml >>> @@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ properties: >>> >>> - description: RZ/G2UL (R9A07G043) >>> items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - renesas,smarc-evk # SMARC EVK >> >> I see you are using same compatible for different configurations. I think >> it should be rather a specific compatible (e.g. >> renesas,smarc-evk-r9a07g043). It's the most detailed compatible, so the >> user is expected to check it and have the answer about specific board. >> Here it won't work - you have three different configurations with the >> same, most specific compatible. > > SMARC-EVK is common to RZ/G2L(R9A07G044L), RZ/G2LC(R9A07G044C) , RZ/V2L(R9A07G054L), > RZ/G2UL Type-1(r9a07g043u11) and RZ/Five(r9a07g043f) SoC's. > > For consistency I have made similar change. So you recommend to change > Other SoC's as well? > > SMARC-EVK is common carrier board and We have a SoM module which contains SoC. > > R9A07G043 is generic compatible for RZ/G2UL arm based SoC and RZ/Five RISC > Based SoC. > > Do I miss any thing compared to other existing renesas SoC's, please let me know. I understand that carrier board is the same, so the SoM differs. In your model to figure out what type of hardware is it, your choice is to compare two compatibles: renesas,smarc-evk + renesas,r9a07g043u11 If user-space compares only last compatible, it get's only SMARC, so it does not know on what hardware it runs. Maybe I am wrong, but the combination of compatibles should not be used as a specific description. IOW, only one, final compatible should determine the type of hardware. Therefore in your case it should be: renesas,smarc-evk-r9a07g043u11 + renesas,r9a07g043u11 + renesas,r9a07g043 That's my understanding of compatibles from Devicetree spec. Such approach is used in other boards, you can check for example Toradex and Variscite boards in arm/fsl.yaml. For example VAR-SOM-MX8MM is a SoM and it's boards are: - const: variscite,var-som-mx8mm-symphony - const: variscite,var-som-mx8mm - const: fsl,imx8mm The first const could be an enum, but there are no other boards, except Symphony kit. Symphony can be used with other modules as well, so there is: variscite,var-som-mx8mn-symphony (notice 8mm -> 8mn) Best regards, Krzysztof
