On 11/4/2019 12:03 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Sun 03 Nov 22:17 PST 2019, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On 10/31/2019 1:20 AM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:50:40AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2019-10-23 02:02:19)
From: Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Add pdc interrupt controller for sc7180
Signed-off-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v3:
Used the qcom,sdm845-pdc compatible for pdc node
Everything else isn't doing the weird old compatible thing. Why not just
add the new compatible and update the driver? I guess I'll have to go
read the history.
Marc Zyngier complained on v2 about the churn from adding compatible
strings for identical components, and I kinda see his point.
I agree that using the 'sdm845' compatible string for sc7180 is odd too.
Maybe we should introduce SoC independent compatible strings for IP blocks
that are shared across multiple SoCs? If differentiation is needed SoC
specific strings can be added.
Sure, I will perhaps add a qcom,pdc SoC independent compatible to avoid
confusion.
I agree,
compatible = "qcom,sc7180-pdc", "qcom,pdc";
is the way to go.
I wasn't planning on adding a qcom,sc7180-pdc, but instead just use the
qcom,pdc one for sc7180.
Reusing qcom,sdm845-pdc would prevent us from tackling any unforeseen
issues/variations/erratas with one or the other platform in the future.
That was the intention of adding qcom,sc7180-pdc in the first place,
but Marc Zyngier was not happy with the churn, given there aren't really
any variations or erratas that we know of.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
