[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE-0n52-DTb17sewUiZ2znQWWexkpf5YbFsBaQdd3Z0n+BZqzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 23:34:38 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To: Philip Chen <philipchen@...omium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dianders@...omium.org,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: sc7180: Support Lazor/Limozeen rev9
Quoting Philip Chen (2021-10-28 17:48:39)
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:00 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Philip Chen (2021-10-28 15:11:31)
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor.dtsi
> > > index 8b79fbb75756..69666f92176a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor.dtsi
> > > @@ -5,13 +5,10 @@
> > > * Copyright 2020 Google LLC.
> > > */
> > >
> > > -#include "sc7180.dtsi"
> > > -
> > > ap_ec_spi: &spi6 {};
> > > ap_h1_spi: &spi0 {};
> >
> > Can we get rid of this node swap now? I think it is only around because
> > early on we swapped the EC and H1 spi interfaces and then we had to swap
> > it every time we made a new board.
> >
> > $ git grep ap_ec_spi
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-coachz.dtsi:ap_ec_spi: &spi6 {};
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-lazor.dtsi:ap_ec_spi: &spi6 {};
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pompom.dtsi:ap_ec_spi: &spi6 {};
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-r1.dts:ap_ec_spi: &spi6 {};
> >
> > It feels like we'd be better off leaving that quirk in trogdor-r0, which
> > conveniently isn't upstream, and then relabel the spi nodes in
> > sc7180-trogdor.dtsi now. Otherwise I look at this and have to remember
> > that whenever this dtsi file is included, we've already included the
> > sc7180.dtsi file before it, so that the relabel actually works.
>
> I agree it'll be great if we can get rid of the node swap.
> It's out of the scope of this patch series though.
> We should probably send a separate patch for this change later?
>
Ok.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists