On 06/12/2023 17:16, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 10:22:25AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Tesla FSD is a derivative of Samsung Exynos SoC, thus just like the >> others it reuses several devices from older designs. Historically we >> kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no >> bug here, however guidelines expressed in >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: >> 1. Compatibles should be specific. >> 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. >> >> Add Tesla FSD compatible specific to be used with an existing fallback. >> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> I propose to take the patch through Samsung SoC (me). See cover letter >> for explanation. >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-samsung.yaml | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > You point to the guidelines that say we should have specific compatible> strings, but then the string that you add seems very generic. Now, I'm > obviously not an expert on Tesla hardware, but just FSD seems to be > quite generic according to the internet. It seems like the chip derived > from Samsung used to be known as AP3/HW3, but there's now also AP4/HW4, > so I wonder if those differ in some way and if these shouldn't include > some sort of version/generation number. That's the compatible chosen that time for entire platform, as a consensus, for all SoC components. Thus the PWM compatible is as specific as it can get. Best regards, Krzysztof
