[PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: hwinfo: Add second register range for GP_SW

[Judith Mendez]

Hi Krystoff,

On 8/6/25 1:40 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 06/08/2025 01:49, Judith Mendez wrote:
>> This adds a second register range in ti,k3-socinfo. This register
> 
> Please do not use "This commit/patch/change", but imperative mood. See
> longer explanation here:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17.1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L95

I can reword this.

> 
> 
>> range can also be used to detect silicon revisions.
>>
>> AM62px SR1.0, SR1.1, and SR1.2 can only be distinguished with GP_SW
>> registers, so increase maximum items to 2 for reg property and update
>> the example.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Judith Mendez <jm at ti.com>
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/hwinfo/ti,k3-socinfo.yaml        | 9 ++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwinfo/ti,k3-socinfo.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwinfo/ti,k3-socinfo.yaml
>> index dada28b47ea0..3b656fc0cb5a 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwinfo/ti,k3-socinfo.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwinfo/ti,k3-socinfo.yaml
>> @@ -24,7 +24,8 @@ properties:
>>         - const: ti,am654-chipid
>>   
>>     reg:
>> -    maxItems: 1
>> +    maxItems: 2
>> +    minItems: 1
> 
> They always come with reversed order... but anyway, you instead must
> list the items with minItems.
> 
> another problem is that this is not supposed to be per register. I
> already complained more than once about some of TI bindings: stop
> creating device nodes or address spaces per register.
> 
> That's one address space.

That does not really make sense. Registers jtag vs gp_sw have a
different back-end, one from silicon and another from efuse. Not even
sure if the memory map will always be the same across processors.

> 
>>   
>>   required:
>>     - compatible
>> @@ -34,7 +35,9 @@ additionalProperties: false
>>   
>>   examples:
>>     - |
>> -    chipid at 43000014 {
>> +    chipid at 14 {
> 
> And this was never even checked :/ You have clear warnings here.

I will double check this.


~ Judith