On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:13 PM Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:07 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 10:56:26PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 06:14:07PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > > >> SDM845 uses v2.4.0 of the TSENS IP block but the get_temp() function > > > >> appears to be identical across v2.x.y in code seen so far. We use the > > > >> generic get_temp() function. > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> --- > > > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.txt | 2 ++ > > > >> drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens-v2.c | 6 +++++- > > > >> drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.c | 6 ++++++ > > > >> drivers/thermal/qcom/tsens.h | 5 ++++- > > > >> 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.txt > > > >> index 06195e8..075182e 100644 > > > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.txt > > > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/qcom-tsens.txt > > > >> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ Required properties: > > > >> - "qcom,msm8916-tsens" : For 8916 Family of SoCs > > > >> - "qcom,msm8974-tsens" : For 8974 Family of SoCs > > > >> - "qcom,msm8996-tsens" : For 8996 Family of SoCs > > > >> + - "qcom,tsens-v2.4.0" : For SDM845 Family of SoCs > > > >> + - "qcom,tsens-v2" : Generic fallback binding for any Soc using 2.x.y version of the tsens IP > > > > > > > > You need to show what are valid combinations of compatibles. Does v2 > > > > apply to 8996? One valid combination per line. > > > > > > I've restructured qcom-tsens.txt to look like this: > > > > > > -----%<------- > > > > > > * QCOM SoC Temperature Sensor (TSENS) > > > > > > Required properties: > > > - compatible: must be one of the following: > > > - "qcom,msm8916-tsens" (MSM8916) > > > - "qcom,msm8974-tsens" (MSM8974) > > > - "qcom,msm8996-tsens" (MSM8996) > > > - "qcom,tsens-<ip_version>", "qcom,tsens-v2" (TSENS IP version and a > > > generic v2 property as fallback except for MSM8996) > > > > > > Examples with ip_version are: > > > - "qcom,tsens-v2.4.0", "qcom,tsens-v2" (SDM845) > > > - "qcom,tsens-v2.2.1", "qcom,tsens-v2" (MSM8998) > > > > > > -----%<------- > > > > > > 8996 would end up being something like this if needed, though we're > > > stuck with "qcom,msm8996-tsens": > > > "qcom,msm8996-tsens", "qcom,tsens-v2.1.0", "qcom,tsens-v2" (MSM8996) > > > > 3 versions here for 3 SoCs. I'm not getting that convinced version > > numbers really are better. I would assume that other QCom IP blocks > > Yeah, it is a bit unfortunate that the 3-4 SoCs we're focusing on > getting supported upstream have different versions of the TSENS IP. > The other goal of this work was to make the upstream driver > feature-complete so we can make a case to switch to it in the > downstream trees, even on platforms that aren't being active > upstreamed. They'll still need to keep around those SoC-specific > one-liner patches in the downstream trees. Why? They can just use the "v2" fallback (which was sufficient for your original version). That's not my recommendation, but what do I care for downstream. Only upstream needs the specific strings to appease the annoying DT maintainers. Plus, if it's not upstream, it doesn't exist. :) > > have versions too, but pretty much *every* *other* binding uses SoC names. > > Why is this one special? > > I'm not an expert on all QC IPs, but this one _seems_ to be reused a > lot more than others. > > > The other problem with versions is the mapping > > of versions to SoCs most likely can't be validated outside of QCom > > unless there's a version register. > > There is in fact a HW version register that I was hoping to add > support for later. Yes, you should rely on that as much as possible. But I have seen h/w designers forget to update revision registers or there can be integration differences even if the IP version is the same. > > So, sorry to go in circles, but can you go back to qcom,<soc>-tsens. You > > can keep qcom,tsens-v2 as a fallback. > > OK. > > > Yes, it's annoying to have to update bindings for new SoCs. But it's > > trivial one line patches. Look at Renesas bindings. Maybe adding new > > ones will be scriptable once we move to json-schema binding docs. > > I did look at the Renesas RCar bindings when restructuring the > documentation. They seem to have settled upon a 3-level fallback: > "soc-specific", "generic-no TZ", "generic-TZ". But > drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c seems to be compatible with only one > soc-specific property (thermal-r8a77995) and all other SoCs seem to be > just relying the fallbacks. > > Anyways, I'll respin. > > Thanks. > > Regards, > Amit -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
