On 03/02/2026 09:00, Jie Gan wrote:

On 2/3/2026 4:50 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:

...

On 2/3/26 9:08 AM, Jie Gan wrote:

...

Document the platforms that fallback to using the qcom,sa8775p-ctcu compatible for probing.

Signed-off-by: Jie Gan jie.gan@oss.qualcomm.com

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight-ctcu.yaml | 4 ++++   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight- ctcu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight- ctcu.yaml index e002f87361ad..68853db52bef 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight-ctcu.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom,coresight-ctcu.yaml @@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ properties:       oneOf:         - items:             - enum: +              - qcom,glymur-ctcu +              - qcom,hamoa-ctcu +              - qcom,kaanapali-ctcu +              - qcom,pakala-ctcu

Platforms with existing numeric compatibles should continue to use them, so that the mess is somewhat containable

Sure Konrad. So for Pakala, I will change it back to qcom,sm8750-ctcu

Why do we need different compatibles for the others ? Are they not all compliant to the CTCU programming model ? i.e., sa8775p-ctcu ? or even, a generic,

qcom,coresight-ctcu

Suzuki

Thanks, Jie

...

Konrad