On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 04:03:41PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > qcom,q6v5.txt covers multiple SoCs with quite different binding > requirements. Converting this into one DT schema would require > several if statements, making the DT schema overall harder to > read and understand. > > To avoid this, follow the example of SC7180/SC7280 and split > "qcom,msm8916-mss-pil" (and the equivalent deprecated "qcom,q6v5-pil" > compatible) into a separate DT schema. The schema is somewhat based > on the one for SC7180/SC7280 but adjusted for the old platforms. > > Compared to the old plain text bindings, add missing documentation for > the "bam-dmux" subnode and recommend one particular approach to specify > the MBA/MPSS "memory-region" (the other one is marked as deprecated). > > Cc: Sireesh Kodali <sireeshkodali1@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Changes in v2: > - Add blank lines between top-level properties > - Drop "deprecated" in "oneOf" list, it is not clear if this is valid > and it should be redundant since the properties itself are already > marked as "deprecated" > --- > Like Sibi's patch series for SC7180/SC7820 [1] this is somewhat related > to Sireesh's series that converts all of qcom,q6v5.txt [2] (with a lot > of if statements). However, this series focuses on MSM8916/MSM8974 (or > actually MSM8909) only. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/1657020721-24939-1-git-send-email-quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220511161602.117772-7-sireeshkodali1@xxxxxxxxx/ Is that one abandoned or do we just get to review both approaches without coordination? I think you need a common q6v5 schema here with all the common properties. Having the same property name with the type defined multiple times is not great. In fact, I'm working on a check for finding those. Rob
