lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] dt-bindings: qcom: readme: document preferred compatible naming
From


On 1.07.2022 22:42, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 09:46:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Compatibles can come in two formats. Either "vendor,ip-soc" or
>> "vendor,soc-ip". Qualcomm bindings were mixing both of usages, so add a
>> readme file documenting preferred policy.
>
> Is this all I needed to do to stop this from QCom? </sarcasm>
>
> This convention is not QCom specific, though the error mostly is.
> Perhaps this should be documented generically.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Robert Foss <robert.foss@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..322b329ac7c1
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
>> +
>> +Qualcomm SoC compatibles naming convention
>> +==========================================
>> +1. When adding new compatibles in new bindings, use the format:
>> + ::
>> +
>> + qcom,SoC-IP
>> +
>> + For example:
>> + ::
>> +
>> + qcom,sdm845-llcc-bwmon
>
> Assuming the list of possible SoCs was maintained, you could make this a
> schema. Though there might be false positives.
Maybe there could be a list of *all* (maaaybe except the really vintage ones
that could barely run Linux at all, if even..), qcom SoCs (for example based
on the Wikipedia one [1]) that would account for future porting and could be
updated with new platforms as they get released?

Konrad

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qualcomm_Snapdragon_processors
>
>> +
>> +2. When adding new compatibles to existing bindings, use the format
>> + in the existing binding, even if it contradicts the above.
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-02 10:38    [W:0.045 / U:0.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site