Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/16] dt-bindings: spi: Add bcmbca-hsspi controller support | From | William Zhang <> | Date | Wed, 11 Jan 2023 10:04:16 -0800 |
| |
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? [unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
| |