RE: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: fsl: scu: add fallback compatible string for power domain

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: Shawn Guo [mailto:shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 9:03 PM
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:48:21AM +0000, Aisheng Dong wrote:
> > Hi Shawn,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Shawn Guo [mailto:shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 5:07 PM
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 05:00:11PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 04:01:20PM +0000, Aisheng Dong wrote:
> > > > > SCU power domain can be used in the same way by IMX8QXP and
> > > IMX8QM SoCs.
> > > > > Let's add a "fsl,scu-pd" fallback compatible string to allow
> > > > > other SoCs to reuse the common part.
> > > >
> > > > This is not the practice we used to match devices with
> > > > compatibilities, i.e. coding the compatible string with the SoC
> > > > name that firstly introduces the device, and use the compatible as
> > > > fallback for new
> > > SoCs.
> > >
> >
> > This is suggested by Rob that if the future SoCs are likely to be compatible.
> > Then we can use a general fallback compatible string like "fsl,scu-pd".
> >
> >
> > From SCU HW protocol point of view, they're indeed compatible.
> > Just varies a bit on the domains numbers.
> > That's why we introduce "fsl,scu-pd".
> > But still keep SoC specific compatible string in case any special
> > tricks to ensure the ABI stability.
> >
> > How do you think?
> 
> Unless Rob is against the practice we have been used for long time on i.MX, I
> would keep using it for i.MX8, i.e. instead of introducing a generic compatible
> for fallback, simply falling on the compatible SoC specified IP block.
> 

Hmm, i feel protocol based devices is slightly a bit different from our old practice.
See ARM and TI are all used generic compatible string.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/sci-pm-domain.txt

If from firmware protocol point of view, they're defined SoC independent.
SW(driver) implementation might be a different on platforms due to special tricks
or implemented as platform independent.

Anyway, if you strongly against this, i will change to what you requested.

Regards
Dong Aisheng

> Shawn





[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux