On 8/8/2024 4:00 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 07/08/2024 20:32, Melody Olvera wrote:The EUD can more accurately be divided into two types; a secure type which requires that certain registers be updated via scm call and a nonsecure type which must access registers nonsecurely. Thus, change the compatible strings to reflect secure and nonsecure eud usage. Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml index f2c5ec7e6437..476f92768610 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ properties: compatible: items: - enum: - - qcom,sc7280-eud - - const: qcom,eud + - qcom,secure-eud + - qcom,eudCommit msg did not explain me why DT bindings rules are avoided here and you drop existing SoC specific compatible. This really does not look like having any sense at all, I cannot come up with logic behind dropping existing users. You could deprecate it, but then why exactly this device should have exception from generic bindings rule?
Understood. I won't drop this compatible string. Is alright to add the additional compatible as is?
Thanks, Melody
Best regards, Krzysztof
