[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c3d1857-5053-cd8f-75d5-d2691139dfc9@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 21:56:12 +0530
From: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
<agross@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
<konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, <thara.gopinath@...il.com>,
<rafael@...nel.org>, <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
<dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] dt-bindings: thermal: qcom-tsens: Add ipq5018
compatible
On 9/19/2023 6:26 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/09/2023 14:48, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/19/2023 6:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 19/09/2023 09:22, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/15/2023 6:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 15/09/2023 14:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/09/2023 14:15, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>>>>>> IPQ5018 has tsens v1.0 block with 4 sensors and 1 interrupt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> [v2] Sorted the compatible and removed example
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, unreviewed. Your driver says it is not compatible with
>>>>> qcom,tsens-v1. This does not look right :/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is V1 IP, but since there is no RPM, to enable the IP/SENSORS
>>>> have to do those steps after calling init_common. Similar reason
>>>> added a new feat as well in patch #2 as well. Hence for this,
>>>> new compatible was required.
>>>
>>> I dud not write about new or old compatible ("compatible" as noun). I
>>> wrote that it is not compatible ("compatible" as adjective) with v1.
>>>
>>
>> Ho, in that case, yes it is not compatible with V1 init and features
>> because of 'no rpm'. So in that case, should this be documented
>> as a separate version of 'V1 without rpm' ?
>
> It should not be mixed with regular v1, just as new entry there. I don't
> think fallback is needed - just use SoC specific compatible.
>
ok, sure, will add in V3.
Regards,
Sricharan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists