> -----Original Message----- > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 27 July 2022 13:37 > To: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Lad, Prabhakar > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>; Magnus Damm > <magnus.damm@xxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof > Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paul Walmsley > <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>; Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Albert > Ou <aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Anup Patel <anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux- > Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND > FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-riscv > <linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] dt-bindings: riscv: Add DT binding > documentation for Renesas RZ/Five SoC and SMARC EVK > > On 27/07/2022 14:21, Biju Das wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] dt-bindings: riscv: Add DT binding > >> documentation for Renesas RZ/Five SoC and SMARC EVK > >> > >> On 27/07/2022 13:37, Lad, Prabhakar wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>> I did run the dtbs_check test as per your suggestion (below is the > >>>>> log) and didn't see "no matching schema error" > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So you do not see any errors at all. Then it does not work, does > it? > >>>> > >>> Right I reverted my changes I can see it complaining, dtb_check > >>> seems to have returned false positive in my case. > >>> > >>> What approach would you suggest to ignore the schema here? > >> > >> I don't think currently it would work with your approach. Instead, > >> you should select here all SoCs which the schema should match. > >> > >> This leads to my previous concern - you use the same SoC compatible > >> for two different architectures and different SoCs: ARMv8 and RISC-V. > > > > Or is it same SoC(R9A07G043) based on two different CPU architectures > > (ARMv8 and RISC-V) > > Then it is not the same SoC! Same means same, identical. CPU > architecture is one of the major differences, which means it is not the > same. Family SoC(R9A07G043) is at top level. Then it has different SoCId for taking care of differences for SoC based on ARMV8 and RISC-V which has separate compatible like r9a07g043u11 and r9a07g043f01? > > > Using same SoM and Carrier board? > > It's like saying PC with x86 and ARMv8 board are the same because they > both use same "PC chassis". What I meant is board based on Family SoC(R9A07G043) that is either based on ARMv8 or RISC-V cpu architecture. Cheers, Biju
