lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/16] dt-bindings: spi: Add bcmbca-hsspi controller support
From
Date


On 01/10/2023 02:18 PM, 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";
>
> in which case, having a fallback compatible on the SoC family that sees
> this IP being deployed is very useful for client programs of the DT
> (u-boot or kernel). As long as the fallback works, we use it, the day it
> stops and a quirk needs to be applied because SoC XYZ has a bug, match
> the SoC XYZ compatible string.
>
> FWIW, and feel free to rant at me, we have adopted this convention a
> while ago for STB chips whereby we want bindings to be defined with:
>
> <chip specific compatible>, <version of the IP>, <fallback>
>
> and the fallback may, or may not be matched, but defining in does not
> hurt at all, in fact it dramatically helps with the boot loader looking
> for specific nodes because it can search for the fallback.
>
> If the version specific compatible is not available, it does not get used.

Thanks Florian for jumping in! I was thinking to propose something with
version info:
brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.0
brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.1

To meet STB chip convention, then it would be:
compatible = "brcm,bcm63138-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.0",
"brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";
compatible = "brcm,bcm6756-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.1",
"brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";

Although I am not a fan of having a chip specific compatible while we
already have IP version, I am okay to have it to be consistent with
Broadcom convention. We will need to remember to update this yaml file
whenever we have a new chip.
[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:35    [W:0.205 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site