[PATCH] dt-bindings: soc: xilinx: Add support for K26 rev2 SOMs

[PATCH] dt-bindings: soc: xilinx: Add support for K26 rev2 SOMs

[Michal Simek]

Revision 2 is SW compatible with revision 1 but it is necessary to reflect
it in model and compatible properties which are parsed by user space.
Rev 2 has improved a power on boot reset and MIO34 shutdown glich
improvement done via an additional filter in the GreenPak chip.

Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>
---

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
index d4c0fe1fe435..62617e1ea74f 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
@@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ properties:
 
       - description: Xilinx Kria SOMs
         items:
+          - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-rev2
           - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-rev1
           - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-revB
           - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-revA
@@ -126,6 +127,7 @@ properties:
 
       - description: Xilinx Kria SOMs (starter)
         items:
+          - const: xlnx,zynqmp-smk-k26-rev2
           - const: xlnx,zynqmp-smk-k26-rev1
           - const: xlnx,zynqmp-smk-k26-revB
           - const: xlnx,zynqmp-smk-k26-revA
-- 
2.36.1

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: soc: xilinx: Add support for K26 rev2 SOMs

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 19/12/2023 15:25, Michal Simek wrote:
> Revision 2 is SW compatible with revision 1 but it is necessary to reflect
> it in model and compatible properties which are parsed by user space.
> Rev 2 has improved a power on boot reset and MIO34 shutdown glich
> improvement done via an additional filter in the GreenPak chip.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>
> ---
> 
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
> index d4c0fe1fe435..62617e1ea74f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
> @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ properties:
>  
>        - description: Xilinx Kria SOMs
>          items:
> +          - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-rev2
>            - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-rev1
>            - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-revB
>            - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-revA

You are changing existing list of compatibles, so all devices with
"rev1" will fail the checks. Is it expected?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: soc: xilinx: Add support for K26 rev2 SOMs

[Michal Simek]

On 12/20/23 08:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 15:25, Michal Simek wrote:
>> Revision 2 is SW compatible with revision 1 but it is necessary to reflect
>> it in model and compatible properties which are parsed by user space.
>> Rev 2 has improved a power on boot reset and MIO34 shutdown glich
>> improvement done via an additional filter in the GreenPak chip.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>
>> ---
>>
>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
>> index d4c0fe1fe435..62617e1ea74f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx/xilinx.yaml
>> @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ properties:
>>   
>>         - description: Xilinx Kria SOMs
>>           items:
>> +          - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-rev2
>>             - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-rev1
>>             - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-revB
>>             - const: xlnx,zynqmp-sm-k26-revA
> 
> You are changing existing list of compatibles, so all devices with
> "rev1" will fail the checks. Is it expected?

That's a good point. I have actually never have a need to support older 
combination from validation perspective.
Let me play with it and see how it will look like to support all older 
combinations.
That would very much apply to almost all other records in this file.

Thanks,
Michal