Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: dts: ti: Introduce AM62P5 SoC and board

[Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>]

On 15/08/23 02:24, Andrew Davis wrote:
> On 8/14/23 2:26 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/08/2023 00:49, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> Hi Vignesh Raghavendra,
>>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 00:14:29 +0530, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>>> This series adds basic support for AM62P family of SoCs and
>>>> specifically
>>>> AM62P5 variant. Also adds AM62P5-SK support with basic peripheral
>>>> like UART.
>>>>
>>>> TRM at [0] and Schematics is at [1]
>>>>
>>>> [0]: https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruj83
>>>> [1]: https://www.ti.com/lit/zip/sprr487
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Note: since the changes were trivial, I incorporated the cosmetic
>>> fixup suggested by Andrew locally when I applied. I have also dropped
>>> bootph property from board's reserved nodes inline with what we did
>>> for j721s2[2]. Thanks for the bootlog.
>>>
>>> I have applied the following to branch ti-k3-dts-next on [1].
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> [1/3] dt-bindings: arm: ti: Add bindings for AM62P5 SoCs
>>>        commit: b57fc5cbdbdfd04d44697800a9d59aeb3be2f273
>>> [2/3] arm64: dts: ti: Introduce AM62P5 family of SoCs
>>>        commit: 29075cc09f43a024d962da66d2e4f9eb577713d0
>>> [3/3] arm64: dts: ti: Add support for the AM62P5 Starter Kit
>>>        commit: 935c4047d42e53a06ec768ddc495a44f6869209c
>>>
>>
>> A bit too fast. simple-mfd *is not allowed* on its own.
>>
> We have the rule against ['syscon', 'simple-mfd'], which requires a 3rd
> specific compatible, but it seems 'simple-mfd' is allowed in the same way
> as "simple-bus" (not sure how or why, I would expect a `failed to match any
> schema with compatible`, but I'm not getting that either?).
> 

Indeed, I didn't see any warnings from dtbs_check so far

> We can add something like simple-mfd.yaml for this to explicitly check that
> the compatible has minItems: 2.
> 
> But in this case these seem to be just a typo and we meant "simple-bus"
> here,
> then it got copy/pasted over our k3 tree.
> 

I dont think "simple-bus" is enough due to presence to TI specific
property (ti,sci-dev-id). So this will warrant a separate yaml bindings.
 I will work towards adding such a file.

> So as Nishanth suggested, we can clean this up first thing next cycle, then
> add a rule to prevent it from happening for anyone else again while we
> are at it.
> 
> Andrew
> 
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>

-- 
Regards
Vignesh