Compatibles can come in two formats. Either "vendor,ip-soc" or
"vendor,soc-ip". Qualcomm bindings were mixing both of usages, so add a
readme file documenting preferred policy.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <[email protected]>
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
Cc: Vinod Koul <[email protected]>
Cc: Alex Elder <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Foss <[email protected]>
Cc: Bhupesh Sharma <[email protected]>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..322b329ac7c1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
+
+Qualcomm SoC compatibles naming convention
+==========================================
+1. When adding new compatibles in new bindings, use the format:
+ ::
+
+ qcom,SoC-IP
+
+ For example:
+ ::
+
+ qcom,sdm845-llcc-bwmon
+
+2. When adding new compatibles to existing bindings, use the format
+ in the existing binding, even if it contradicts the above.
--
2.34.1
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 09:46:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Compatibles can come in two formats. Either "vendor,ip-soc" or
> "vendor,soc-ip". Qualcomm bindings were mixing both of usages, so add a
> readme file documenting preferred policy.
Is this all I needed to do to stop this from QCom? </sarcasm>
This convention is not QCom specific, though the error mostly is.
Perhaps this should be documented generically.
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <[email protected]>
> Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
> Cc: Vinod Koul <[email protected]>
> Cc: Alex Elder <[email protected]>
> Cc: Robert Foss <[email protected]>
> Cc: Bhupesh Sharma <[email protected]>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..322b329ac7c1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> +
> +Qualcomm SoC compatibles naming convention
> +==========================================
> +1. When adding new compatibles in new bindings, use the format:
> + ::
> +
> + qcom,SoC-IP
> +
> + For example:
> + ::
> +
> + qcom,sdm845-llcc-bwmon
Assuming the list of possible SoCs was maintained, you could make this a
schema. Though there might be false positives.
> +
> +2. When adding new compatibles to existing bindings, use the format
> + in the existing binding, even if it contradicts the above.
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>
On 1.07.2022 22:42, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 09:46:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Compatibles can come in two formats. Either "vendor,ip-soc" or
>> "vendor,soc-ip". Qualcomm bindings were mixing both of usages, so add a
>> readme file documenting preferred policy.
>
> Is this all I needed to do to stop this from QCom? </sarcasm>
>
> This convention is not QCom specific, though the error mostly is.
> Perhaps this should be documented generically.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Vinod Koul <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Alex Elder <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Robert Foss <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Bhupesh Sharma <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..322b329ac7c1
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
>> +
>> +Qualcomm SoC compatibles naming convention
>> +==========================================
>> +1. When adding new compatibles in new bindings, use the format:
>> + ::
>> +
>> + qcom,SoC-IP
>> +
>> + For example:
>> + ::
>> +
>> + qcom,sdm845-llcc-bwmon
>
> Assuming the list of possible SoCs was maintained, you could make this a
> schema. Though there might be false positives.
Maybe there could be a list of *all* (maaaybe except the really vintage ones
that could barely run Linux at all, if even..), qcom SoCs (for example based
on the Wikipedia one [1]) that would account for future porting and could be
updated with new platforms as they get released?
Konrad
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qualcomm_Snapdragon_processors
>
>> +
>> +2. When adding new compatibles to existing bindings, use the format
>> + in the existing binding, even if it contradicts the above.
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>>
On 01/07/2022 22:42, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 09:46:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Compatibles can come in two formats. Either "vendor,ip-soc" or
>> "vendor,soc-ip". Qualcomm bindings were mixing both of usages, so add a
>> readme file documenting preferred policy.
>
> Is this all I needed to do to stop this from QCom? </sarcasm>
>
> This convention is not QCom specific, though the error mostly is.
> Perhaps this should be documented generically.
Good point. I can this to writing-bindings.rst.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Vinod Koul <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Alex Elder <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Robert Foss <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Bhupesh Sharma <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..322b329ac7c1
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/README.rst
>> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
>> +
>> +Qualcomm SoC compatibles naming convention
>> +==========================================
>> +1. When adding new compatibles in new bindings, use the format:
>> + ::
>> +
>> + qcom,SoC-IP
>> +
>> + For example:
>> + ::
>> +
>> + qcom,sdm845-llcc-bwmon
>
> Assuming the list of possible SoCs was maintained, you could make this a
> schema. Though there might be false positives.
Indeed it works, although I need some exceptions for existing compatibles.
Best regards,
Krzysztof