On 30/06/2023 06:17, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 6/29/2023 5:24 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 29/06/2023 22:29, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
With [1] dpu core revision was dropped in favor of using the
compatible string from the device tree to select the dpu catalog
being used in the device.
This approach works well however also necessitates adding catalog
entries for small register level details as dpu capabilities and/or
features bloating the catalog unnecessarily. Examples include but
are not limited to data_compress, interrupt register set, widebus etc.
Generic note: this description can be moved to the cover letter, it
covers the series intent.
I kept it here as I didnt really have a cover letter but I can add one
and move this there.
Yes, please. I suppose that any series of more than a single non-trivial
patch should have a cover letter, which describes the intentions and the
ideas behind the series.
Introduce the dpu core revision back as an entry to the catalog so that
we can just use dpu revision checks and enable those bits which
should be enabled unconditionally and not controlled by a catalog
and also simplify the changes to do something like:
if (dpu_core_revision > xxxxx && dpu_core_revision < xxxxx)
enable the bit;
Since dpu's major and minor versions are now separate fields, lets
drop all the DPU_HW_VER macros.
[1]: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/530891/?series=113910&rev=4
Please use `commit aabbcc ("do this and that")' in the commit messages.
Ack.
changes in v3:
- drop DPU step version as features are not changing across steps
- add core_major_version / core_minor_version to avoid conflicts
- update the commit text to drop references to the dpu macros
Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
