On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:45:45PM +0200, claudiu beznea wrote:
>
>
> On 16.02.2024 11:35, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:24:13AM +0200, claudiu beznea wrote:
> >> On 16.02.2024 09:56, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> >>> On 16/02/2024 06:58:10+0000, Mihai.Sain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sama7g5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sama7g5.dtsi
> >>>>> index 269e0a3ca269..c030b318985a 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sama7g5.dtsi
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sama7g5.dtsi
> >>>>> @@ -958,6 +958,30 @@ i2c9: i2c@600 {
> >>>>> };
> >>>>> };
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + flx10: flexcom@e2820000 {
> >>>>> + compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-flexcom";
> >>>>
> >>>> My comment here was ignored:
> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240214-robe-pregnancy-a1b056c9fe14@spud/
> >>>>
> >>>> The SAMA7G5 has the same flexcom controller as SAMA5D2 MPU.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Still, it needs its own compatible plus a fallback to
> >>> atmel,sama5d2-flexcom
> >>
> >> I agree with this. Though, flexcom documentation is subject to YAML
> >> conversion (a patch has been re-posted these days [1] and *maybe* it will
> >> be integrated this time). And there are multiple SoC DTs that need to be
> >> updated with their own flexcom compatible (lan966x, sam9x60, sama7g5).
> >>
> >> To avoid conflicting with the work at [1] and postponing this series we may
> >> do the update after the [1] is done.
> >>
> >> Let me know your thoughts. Either way is fine by me.
> >
> > I'd be inclined to say that if we are gonna take a shortcut here, then
> > this patch should add a specific compatible so that when the yaml
> > conversion goes through you'll get a warning about this being
> > undocumented rather than silence.
>
> All the flexcom nodes from all flexcom capable SoCs (including SAMA7G5)
> have the same compatible introduced by Mihai.
>
> I don't like the idea of updating only the DTSes, either update all DTSes
> and documentation or do it as it is already done (with sama5d2 compatible).
>
> >
> > A resend on the flexcom patch is required though, the rebase was not
> > done correctly, so maybe Balakrishnan could "atmel,sama7g5-flexcom"
> > add with a fallback to "atmel,sama5d2-flexcom" while they're fixing
> > it up?
>
> I agree, and DTSes should also be updated along with documentation.
I'm biased, I'll almost never disagree with updating things to use
soc-specific compatibles...
> With this we can go forward with this patch and avoid conflicting with work
> that is currently in progress for flexcom.
I forgot to actually CC Balakrishnan, but Nicolas fortunately forwarded
it to them. They're added now though to make sure they see this.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
