Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-binding: document QCOM platforms for CTCU device

On 2/3/2026 5:31 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:

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

quoted

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

quoted

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

quoted

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

Signed-off-by: Jie Gan <redacted>
---
  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

Hi Suzuki,

The platforms here have two ETR devices, using same "data" in driver. We 
also have platforms only contain one ETR device and we need create a new 
data for these platforms.

I have proposed previously to have generic compatible for CTCU device 
but I got comment for preferring use platform-specific compatible.

Is that acceptable to use qcom,coresight-ctcu-v1 for TWO ETR devices 
platform and qcom,coresight-ctcu-v2 for ONE ETR device platform?

I think it's better to avoid annoying dt-binding patches for the CTCU 
device.

Thanks,
Jie

Suzuki

quoted

Thanks,
Jie

quoted

Konrad