On 01/12/2023 12:21 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
IMHO it is really confusing that we have all the SoCs but have to bind to an antique SoC's spi controller compatible and people may think it is a mistake or typo when they don't know they are actually the same. I know there are usage like that but when we have clear knowledge of the IP block with rev info, I think it is much better to have a precise SoC model number and a general revision info in the compatible. As you know they are many usage of IP rev info in the compatible too. brcm,bcm6328-hsspi will stay so it does not break any existing dts reference to that.On 11/01/2023 19:44, William Zhang wrote:On 01/11/2023 10:12 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:On 11/01/2023 19:04, William Zhang wrote:On 01/11/2023 01:02 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:On 10/01/2023 23:18, Florian Fainelli wrote:On 1/10/23 00:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:No, it is discouraged in such forms. Family or IP block compatibles should be prepended with a specific compatible. There were many issues when people insisted on generic or family compatibles...Otherwise we will have to have a compatible string with chip model for each SoC even they share the same IP. We already have more than ten of SoCs and the list will increase. I don't see this is a good solution too.You will have to do it anyway even with generic fallback, so I don't get what is here to gain... I also don't get why Broadcom should be here special, different than others. Why it is not a good solution for Broadcom SoCs but it is for others?I saw a few other vendors like these qcom ones: qcom,spi-qup.yaml - qcom,spi-qup-v1.1.1 # for 8660, 8960 and 8064 - qcom,spi-qup-v2.1.1 # for 8974 and later - qcom,spi-qup-v2.2.1 # for 8974 v2 and later qcom,spi-qup.yaml const: qcom,geni-spiIP block version numbers are allowed when there is clear mapping between version and SoCs using it. This is the case for Qualcomm because there is such clear mapping documented and available for Qualcomm engineers and also some of us (although not public).I guess when individual who only has one particular board/chip and is not aware of the IP family, it is understandable to use the chip specific compatible string.Family of devices is not a versioned IP block.Would it be acceptable to define for instance: - compatible = "brcm,bcm6868-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";Yes, this is perfectly valid. Although it does not solve William concerns because it requires defining specific compatibles for all of the SoCs. Best regards, KrzysztofAs I mentioned in another email, I would be okay to use these compatibles to differentiate by ip rev and to conforms to brcm convention: "brcm,bcmXYZ-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.0", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi"; "brcm,bcmXYZ-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.1", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";Drop the version in such case, no benefits. I assume XYZ is the SoC model, so for example 6868.Yes XYZ is the SoC modelIn the two drivers I included in this series, it will be bound to brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.0 (in additional to brcm,bcm6328-hsspi) and brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.1 respectively. This way we don't need to update the driver with a new soc specific compatible whenever a new chips comes out.I don't understand why do you bring it now as an argument. You defined before that your driver will bind to the generic bcmbca compatible, so now it is not enough?No as we are adding chip model specific info here. The existing driver spi-bcm63xx-hsspi.c only binds to brcm,bcm6328-hsspi. This driver supports all the chips with rev1.0 controller so I am using this 6328 string for other chips with v1.0 in the dts patch, which is not ideal.Why? This is perfectly ideal and usual case. Why changing it?Now I have to add more compatible to this driver and for each new chip with 1.0 in the future if any.Why you cannot use compatibility with older chipset?
Anyway if you still does not like this idea, I will drop the rev info and you have it your way.
Best regards, Krzysztof
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
