On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 01:42:15PM -0600, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 03:40:52PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 12:53:47PM +0100, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > > Sync the SoC IDs in qcom,ids.h with relevant entries from Qualcomm's LK > > > bootloader [1] that is used for almost all older Qualcomm SoCs. > > > > > > Several of these are already supported, e.g.: > > > - MSM8960 -> APQ8060, MSM8260, ... > > > - MSM8976 -> APQ8076 > > > - MSM8956 -> APQ8056 > > > Others are currently being worked on, e.g.: > > > - MSM8909(W) -> APQ8009(W), MSM8905, MSM8209, ... > > > - MSM8939 -> MSM8239, ... > > > > > > And even all remaining ones added are close enough to what is already > > > supported so that future support is realistic (if someone steps up to > > > do the work). > > > > > > Add all of them at once to avoid having to add them one by one in the > > > future. This will also benefit other projects making use of the same > > > dt-bindings, e.g. bootloaders where adding support for all these SoCs > > > is a bit easier than on Linux. > > > > The promise was in accepting the properties upstream is we'd only be > > adding these for bootloaders with dtbs that we can't otherwise update or > > change. Do all of those meet this criteria? Seems unlikely. > > > > Independent of the question about qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id, I would > like these constants for the socinfo driver (as shown in patch 4). > > Would you prefer that we keep a separate list in Linux? No, its fine given there's more than one use and the schema only allows the properties on certain SoCs already. Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
