> -----Original Message----- > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 6:36 PM > To: Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@xxxxxxxxxxx>; wim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > linux-watchdog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2 v7] dt-bindings: watchdog: marvell GTI system > watchdog driver > > On 09/05/2023 11:01, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 1:38 PM > >> To: Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@xxxxxxxxxxx>; wim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > >> linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > >> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > >> linux-watchdog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2 v7] dt-bindings: watchdog: marvell > >> GTI system watchdog driver > >> > >> On 09/05/2023 09:26, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>> +properties: > >>>>> + compatible: > >>>>> + oneOf: > >>>>> + - const: marvell,octeontx2-wdt > >>>> > >>>> Why is this alone? Judging by the enum below, octeontx2 is not specific. > >>>> > >>>>> + - items: > >>>>> + - enum: > >>>>> + - marvell,octeontx2-95xx-wdt > >>>>> + - marvell,octeontx2-96xx-wdt > >>>>> + - marvell,octeontx2-98xx-wdt > >>>> > >>>> We don't allow wildcards in general > >>> > >>> Marvell have octeontx2 series of processor which have watchdog timer. > >>> In 95xx,98xx,96xx are the processors in octeontx2 series of > >>> processor. So > >> octeontx2-95xx is on soc, octeontx2-96xx is another and so on. > >> > >> No, 95xx is not a processor. Otherwise please point me to exact > >> product datasheet. Hint: I checked it. > > > > Looks like 95xx data sheet is not public, will remove in that case. > > We can talk about 96xx. Can you point me to the SoC named exactly like this? > Hint: I checked it. To recap what Bharat mentioned before along with references to individual processors. OcteonTx2 is a family of processors https://www.marvell.com/products/data-processing-units.html Please check for "OCTEON TX2 DPUs" CN96xx and CN98xx are two silicon variants in this family. https://www.marvell.com/content/dam/marvell/en/public-collateral/embedded-processors/marvell-infrastructure-processors-octeon-tx2-cn92xx-cn96xx-cn98xx-product-brief-2020-02.pdf And CNF95xx is another silicon variant in the same family. https://www.marvell.com/content/dam/marvell/en/public-collateral/embedded-processors/marvell-infrastructure-processors-octeon-fusion-cnf95xx-product-brief.pdf Since the HW block is same in all the variants of silicons in this family, we would like to use a generic string instead of different compatible string for each one. ie - const: marvell,octeontx2-wdt Hope this is okay. Same with CN10K or Octeon10 family of silicons. https://www.marvell.com/products/data-processing-units.html Please check for "OCTEON 10" CN103xx and CN106xx are two silicons in this family. https://www.marvell.com/content/dam/marvell/en/public-collateral/embedded-processors/marvell-octeon-10-dpu-platform-product-brief.pdf Same with CNF105xx https://www.marvell.com/content/dam/marvell/en/public-collateral/embedded-processors/marvell-octeon-10-fusion-cnf105xx-product-brief.pdf For this family we would like to use - const: marvell,cn10k-wdt as the compatible string, as it represents all silicon variants in this family. Thanks, Sunil.
