On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:19:16AM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:29:25AM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 8:11 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 07:02:28AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > > Add entries for MT8186 based Tentacruel / Tentacool Chromebooks. The two
> > > > > are based on the same board design: the former is a convertible device
> > > > > with a touchscreen, stylus, and some extra buttons; the latter is a
> > > > > clamshell device and lacks these additional features.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two devices both have two variants. The difference is a second
> > > > > source touchpad controller that shares the same address as the original,
> > > > > but is incompatible.
> > > >
> > > > > The extra SKU IDs for the Tentacruel devices map to different sensor
> > > > > components attached to the Embedded Controller. These are not visible
> > > > > to the main processor.
> > > >
> > > > Wha? Given your ordering, is a "google,tentacruel-sku262144" a super-set
> > > > of "google,tentacruel-sku262145"? If not, this compatible ordering
> > > > doesn't make sense. I can't tell from your description, and the
> > > > absence of a
> > > > items:
> > > > - const: google,tentacruel-sku262145
> > > > - const: google,tentacruel-sku262146
> > > > - const: google,tentacruel-sku262147
> > > > - const: google,tentacruel
> > > > - const: mediatek,mt8186
> > > > suggests that there is no google,tentacruel-sku262145
> > > > device?
> > >
> > > AFAIK all four SKUs exist. And as far as the main processor is concerned,
> > > they look completely identical, so they should share the same device tree.
> > > As mentioned in the commit message, the differences are only visible to
> > > the embedded controller, which fuses the sensor inputs.
> >
> > Then it makes very little sense to write a binding like this.
> > If this was just for the 252144 SKU, this would be fine.
> > For the other SKUs, there is no way to uniquely identify them, as
> > all four of google,tentacruel-sku262144, google,tentacruel-sku262145,
> > google,tentacruel-sku262146 and google,tentacruel-sku262147 must be
> > present.
> > Given that, why even bother including the SKUs in the first place,
> > since no information can be derived from them that cannot be derived
> > from google,tentacruel?
> > There's something that I am clearly missing here...
>
> There are incompatible variants of google,tentacruel. This is why this
> patch has four google,tentacruel based entries. Of them, two are Tentacool,
> which are clamshell laptops, and two of them are Tentacruel, which are
> convertibles.
>
> Within each group there are two variants: the second variant swaps out
> the I2C touchpad controller. These two controllers use the same I2C
> address but use different compatible strings, so it's not possible to
> have them coexist within the same device tree file like we do for many
> other second source components.
>
> So the relationship looks like the following:
>
> google,tentacruel --- Tentacruel --- google,tentacruel-sku26214[4567]
> | |
> | -- google,tentacruel-sku2621{48,49,50,51}
> |
> -- Tentacool ---- google,tentacruel-sku327681
> |
> --- google,tentacruel-sku327683
>
> Also, the devices themselves only know their own SKU ID. The firmware
> will generate a list of compatible strings like:
>
> google,tentacruel-rev4-sku262144
> google,tentacruel-rev4
> google,tentacruel-sku262144
> google,tentacruel
>
> and try to find a match in the kernel FIT image. The method we currently
> use is to include all the applicable board compatible strings.
Then it seems like what you need is something like
oneOf:
- items:
- const: google,tentacruel-sku262144
- const: google,tentacruel
- const: mediatek,mt8186
- items:
- enum:
- google,tentacruel-sku262145
- google,tentacruel-sku262146
- google,tentacruel-sku262147
- const: google,tentacruel-sku262144
- const: google,tentacruel
- const: mediatek,mt8186
What you have at the moment just seems like a hack because you want to
stuff all of these compatible strings into a single dts.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
