[PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: arm: coresight-tnoc: Add standalone qcom,coresight-agtnoc compatible

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 7/1/26 2:54 PM, Jie Gan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/1/2026 7:02 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 7/1/26 9:31 AM, Jie Gan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/1/2026 3:26 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 01/07/2026 09:16, Jie Gan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/1/2026 2:57 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 09:53:41AM +0800, Jie Gan wrote:
>>>>>>> The TNOC compatible previously only allowed the two-string AMBA form
>>>>>>> "qcom,coresight-tnoc", "arm,primecell", which forces the device onto the
>>>>>>> AMBA bus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Convert the compatible to a oneOf and add a standalone
>>>>>>> "qcom,coresight-agtnoc" compatible alongside the existing AMBA form. The
>>>>>>> standalone string carries no "arm,primecell" entry, so the device is
>>>>>>> created on the platform bus instead of the AMBA bus.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> AMBA primecell identification. The purpose of the new compatible is to
>>>>> clearly distinguish this platform-specific case from the standard
>>>>> AMBA-based implementation. Or shall I re-use the existing compatible
>>>>> "qcom,coresight-tnoc" as platform standalone compatible?
>>>>>
>>>>> We already have a similar pattern for the interconnect TraceNoC device,
>>>>> which uses the platform-specific compatible string qcom,coresight-itnoc.
>>>> I do not see there a fake, duplicated compatible for the same device.
>>>> Can you elaborate how is that relevant?
>>>
>>> Will fix it by removing AMBA related description.
>>>
>>> Shall I update the clock name from apb_pclk to apb as a platform device?
>>
>> Why?
> 
> For the previous platform devices, we got comments to add the clock-name with "apb" instead of "apb_pclk".
> 
> Please check the qcom,coresight-ctcu.yaml and qcom,coresight-itnoc.yaml

Well, if you need to break the bindings already, might as well on
the grounds of choosing a saner ("clock names shouldn't include _clk")
name.. Not sure if Krzysztof will like it

Konrad