Hi, On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 5:01 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 04:45:52PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > > > Subject: arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: enable IPA in sc7280-herobrine-lte-sku.dtsi > > nit: that sounds as if IPA wasn't enabled previously. It would be > clearer to say something like: "sc7280: only enable IPA for boards > with a modem". > > > IPA is only needed on a platform if it includes a modem, and not all > > SC7280 SoC variants do. The file "sc7280-herobrine-lte-sku.dtsi" is > > used to encapsulate definitions related to Chrome OS SC7280 devices > > where a modem is present, and that's the proper place for the IPA > > node to be enabled. > > > > Currently IPA is enabled in "sc7280-idp.dtsi", which is included by > > DTS files for Qualcomm reference platforms (all of which include the > > modem). That also includes "sc7280-herobrine-lte-sku.dtsi", so > > enabling IPA there would make it unnecessary for "sc7280-idp.dtsi" > > to enable it. > > > > The only other place IPA is enabled is "sc7280-qcard.dtsi". > > That file is included only by "sc7280-herobrine.dtsi", which > > is (eventually) included only by these top-level DTS files: > > sc7280-herobrine-crd.dts > > sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r1.dts > > sc7280-herobrine-evoker.dts > > sc7280-herobrine-evoker-lte.dts > > sc7280-herobrine-villager-r0.dts > > sc7280-herobrine-villager-r1.dts > > sc7280-herobrine-villager-r1-lte.dts > > All of but two of these include "sc7280-herobrine-lte-sku.dtsi", and > > for those cases, enabling IPA there means there is no need for it to > > be enabled in "sc7280-qcard.dtsi". > > > > The two remaining cases will no longer enable IPA as a result of > > this change: > > sc7280-herobrine-evoker.dts > > sc7280-herobrine-villager-r1.dts > > Both of these have "lte" counterparts, and are meant to represent > > board variants that do *not* have a modem. > > > > This is exactly the desired configuration. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> I'd agree that the subject like proposed by Matthias sounds better. In any case: Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
