[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <31644849-dc69-ddfc-a6b6-6ffd37d64d2b@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 10:04:16 -0800
From: William Zhang <william.zhang@...adcom.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Linux SPI List <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Broadcom Kernel List <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Cc: anand.gore@...adcom.com, tomer.yacoby@...adcom.com,
dan.beygelman@...adcom.com, joel.peshkin@...adcom.com,
jonas.gorski@...il.com, kursad.oney@...adcom.com, dregan@...l.com,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] dt-bindings: spi: Add bcmbca-hsspi controller
support
On 01/11/2023 01:02 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/01/2023 23:18, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 1/10/23 00:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> No, it is discouraged in such forms. Family or IP block compatibles
>>>>> should be prepended with a specific compatible. There were many issues
>>>>> when people insisted on generic or family compatibles...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise we will have to have a compatible string with chip model for
>>>>>> each SoC even they share the same IP. We already have more than ten of
>>>>>> SoCs and the list will increase. I don't see this is a good solution too.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will have to do it anyway even with generic fallback, so I don't get
>>>>> what is here to gain... I also don't get why Broadcom should be here
>>>>> special, different than others. Why it is not a good solution for
>>>>> Broadcom SoCs but it is for others?
>>>>>
>>>> I saw a few other vendors like these qcom ones:
>>>> qcom,spi-qup.yaml
>>>> - qcom,spi-qup-v1.1.1 # for 8660, 8960 and 8064
>>>> - qcom,spi-qup-v2.1.1 # for 8974 and later
>>>> - qcom,spi-qup-v2.2.1 # for 8974 v2 and later
>>>> qcom,spi-qup.yaml
>>>> const: qcom,geni-spi
>>>
>>> IP block version numbers are allowed when there is clear mapping between
>>> version and SoCs using it. This is the case for Qualcomm because there
>>> is such clear mapping documented and available for Qualcomm engineers
>>> and also some of us (although not public).
>>>
>>>> I guess when individual who only has one particular board/chip and is
>>>> not aware of the IP family, it is understandable to use the chip
>>>> specific compatible string.
>>>
>>> Family of devices is not a versioned IP block.
>>
>> Would it be acceptable to define for instance:
>>
>> - compatible = "brcm,bcm6868-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";
>
> Yes, this is perfectly valid. Although it does not solve William
> concerns because it requires defining specific compatibles for all of
> the SoCs.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
As I mentioned in another email, I would be okay to use these
compatibles to differentiate by ip rev and to conforms to brcm convention:
"brcm,bcmXYZ-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.0", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";
"brcm,bcmXYZ-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.1", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";
In the two drivers I included in this series, it will be bound to
brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.0 (in additional to brcm,bcm6328-hsspi) and
brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.1 respectively. This way we don't need to update
the driver with a new soc specific compatible whenever a new chips comes
out.
Does this sound good to you?
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4212 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists