On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 08:46:19PM +0800, Tengfei Fan wrote: > Document the compatible string for USB phy found in Qualcomm QCS9100 > SoC. > QCS9100 is drived from SA8775p. Currently, both the QCS9100 and SA8775p > platform use non-SCMI resource. In the future, the SA8775p platform will > move to use SCMI resources and it will have new sa8775p-related device > tree. Consequently, introduce "qcom,qcs9100-usb-hs-phy" to describe > non-SCMI based USB phy. > > Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Introduce support for the QCS9100 SoC device tree (DTSI) and the > QCS9100 RIDE board DTS. The QCS9100 is a variant of the SA8775p. > While the QCS9100 platform is still in the early design stage, the > QCS9100 RIDE board is identical to the SA8775p RIDE board, except it > mounts the QCS9100 SoC instead of the SA8775p SoC. > > The QCS9100 SoC DTSI is directly renamed from the SA8775p SoC DTSI, and > all the compatible strings will be updated from "SA8775p" to "QCS9100". > The QCS9100 device tree patches will be pushed after all the device tree > bindings and device driver patches are reviewed. I'm not convinced this is not just pointless churn. Aren't we going to end up with 2 compatible strings for everything? SCMI should just change the providers, but otherwise the consumers are the same. I suppose if clocks are abstracted into power-domains (an abuse IMO) then the bindings change. Why do we need to support both SCMI and not-SCMI for the same chip? Rob
