[PATCH 0/3] ARM: st: use a correct pwr compatible for stm32mp15

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 6:42 AM Patrick DELAUNAY
<patrick.delaunay at foss.st.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 4/25/24 18:30, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 09:48:31AM +0200, Patrick Delaunay wrote:
> >> This patchset removes the unexpected comma in the PWR compatible
> >> "st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg" and uses a new compatible "st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg"
> >> in STM3MP15 device trees.
> > Why? I don't see any warnings from this. Yes, we wouldn't new cases
> > following this pattern, but I don't think it is worth maintaining
> > support for both strings. We're stuck with it. And the only way to
> > maintain forward compatibility is:
>
>
> Yes, no warning because the compatible string are not yet checked by tools.

What do you mean? There's a schema for it, so it is checked. I ran the
tools and there's no warning. If there was a warning, I'd fix the
tools in this case.

> I propose this patch to avoid the usage of this compatible for other SoC
> in STM32MP1 family.
>
>
> I see the invalid compatible string when I reviewed the U-Boot patch to
> add the PWR node for STM32MP13 family:
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20240319024534.103299-1-marex@denx.de/
>

Perhaps you should add SoC specific compatible string instead.

> So I prefer change the PWR binding before to have the same patch applied
> on Linux device tree
>
> > compatible = "st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg", "st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg";
>
>
> Yes, I will update the SoC patch with you proposal.

NO! We don't want to support that.

We have *tons* of examples in DT which don't follow recommended
patterns and we're stuck with them. This is no different. We can get
away with changing node names, but that's about it.

Rob