On 9/5/2024 2:24 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/09/2024 06:30, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>>>> index ef82835e98a4..f92ccd4921b7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
>>>> @@ -1416,6 +1416,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id adsp_of_match[] = {
>>>> { .compatible = "qcom,qcs404-adsp-pas", .data = &adsp_resource_init },
>>>> { .compatible = "qcom,qcs404-cdsp-pas", .data = &cdsp_resource_init },
>>>> { .compatible = "qcom,qcs404-wcss-pas", .data = &wcss_resource_init },
>>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,qcs8300-adsp-pas", .data = &sa8775p_adsp_resource},
>>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,qcs8300-cdsp-pas", .data = &sa8775p_cdsp0_resource},
>>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,qcs8300-gpdsp-pas", .data = &sa8775p_gpdsp0_resource},
>>>
>>> What's the point of this? You have entire commit msg to explain such
>>> weird duplication. Otherwise sorry, don't duplicate unnecessarily.
>>> Devices are compatible, aren't they?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>>
>> I will drop this, could you please help us to understand what is the correct way to
>> deal such situation, do we need to update the yaml and add qcs8300 bindings or just
>> reference to sa8775p bindings in the device tree?
>
> Above diff hunk suggests that devices are compatible, so should be made
> compatible in the bindings (use fallback). There are plenty examples of
> this for all Qualcomm devices.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
The usage of binding seems inconsistent across different Qualcomm drivers. Could you please
confirm that when you mentioned "use fallback", do you mean binding like this?
- items:
- enum:
- qcom,sm8550-sndcard
- qcom,sm8650-sndcard
- const: qcom,sm8450-sndcard
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/qcom,sm8250.yaml
Thanks,
Jingyi
