[PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: regulator: st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg: add compatible for STM32MP13

[Marek Vasut]

On 5/13/24 11:56 AM, Patrick Delaunay wrote:
> Add new compatible "st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg" for STM32MP13 SoC family.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delaunay at foss.st.com>
> ---
> 
> Changes in v3:
> - Replace oneOf/const by enum; solve the V2 issues for dt_binding_check
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - update for Rob review, only add compatible for STM32MP13 family
> 
>   .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml    | 4 +++-
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml
> index c9586d277f41..c766f0a15a31 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32mp1-pwr-reg.yaml
> @@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ maintainers:
>   
>   properties:
>     compatible:
> -    const: st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg
> +    enum:
> +      - st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg
> +      - st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg

Should the st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg be treated as fallback compatible for 
st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg or not ?

In other words, should the DT contain:
compatible = "st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg", "st,stm32mp1,pwr-reg";
or
compatible = "st,stm32mp13-pwr-reg";
? Which one is preferable ?

I think the former one, since the MP13 PWR block could also be operated 
by older MP1(5) PWR block driver(s) without any adverse effects, except 
the SD IO domain configuration won't be available, right ?