On 29/05/2023 10:31, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof:
>
> Excuse me.
> We have different opinions on how to better describe rtc-loongson compatible.
>
> Based on my previous communication with you, I think we should list
> all the Socs in the driver and drop the wildcards.
Suggestion was about the bindings. Not in the driver. I never said to
list all compatibles in the driver...
> This should be clearer and more straightforward:
>
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls1b-rtc", .data = &ls1x_rtc_config
> }, //ls1b soc
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls1c-rtc", .data = &ls1x_rtc_config
> }, //ls1c soc
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls7a-rtc", .data =
> &generic_rtc_config }, //ls7a bridge chip
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls2k0500-rtc", .data =
> &generic_rtc_config }, // ls2k0500 soc
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls2k2000-rtc", .data =
> &generic_rtc_config }, // ls2k2000 soc
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls2k1000-rtc", .data =
> &ls2k1000_rtc_config }, // ls2k1000 soc
I would suggest to use fallbacks as suggested by Conor at least for some
of them. You referred to my previous comments about wildcards.
Wildcard != fallback.
>
> And Conor thought it should be rendered using a fallback compatible
> form based on ".data".
Based on common (compatible) programming model unless you already have
clear hardware differences making them incompatible.
>
> "loongson,ls1b-rtc"
> "loongson,ls1c-rtc", "loongson,ls1b-rtc"
> "loongson,ls7a-rtc"
> "loongson,ls2k0500-rtc", "loongson,ls7a-rtc"
> "longson,ls2k2000-rtc", "longson,ls7a-rtc"
> "loonson,ls2k1000-rtc"
>
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls1b-rtc", .data = &ls1x_rtc_config }
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls7a-rtc", .data = &generic_rtc_config }
> { .compatible = "loongson,ls2k1000-rtc", .data = &ls2k1000_rtc_config }
>
> In this form, I think it might not be possible to show very
> graphically which chips are using the driver.
??? How is it impossible? For all other SoCs and architectures it is
possible, so what is special for Loongson?
> Also, for example, "ls7a" is a bridge chip, while
> "ls2k2000"/"ls2k0500" are soc chips, and it seems inappropriate to
> integrate them into one item.
Why it is inappropriate? I don't see the issue here... what is a
"bridge" chip? Isn't this also an SoC?
>
> Which one do you think is more suitable for us?
Use fallbacks for some. You pointed difference in alarm for ls1x, right?
If so, then they can stay separate.
ls2k500 and ls2k2000 seem compatible with each other so should use fallback.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
