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

[Jie Gan]

On 7/1/2026 9:30 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 01/07/2026 15:09, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> 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
> 
> I miss the rationale for doing the change, why exactly this binding
> should have clocks corrected.

Thanks for confirming.

Jie

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof