On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 06:58:34PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 3.08.2023 07:06, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 03:14:19PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 2.08.2023 15:13, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 8/2/2023 6:12 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>>> On 2.08.2023 11:59, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
> >>>>> Add dtsi for PMIC pm7550ba found in Qualcomm platforms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>> Subject: "PMIC pm7550ba" -> "pm7550ba PMIC"
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + pm7550ba_eusb2_repeater: phy@fd00 {
> >>>>> + compatible = "qcom,pm8550b-eusb2-repeater";
> >>>> A new compatible should be introduced, so that it goes like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> compatible = "qcom,pm7550ba-eusb2-repeater", "qcom,pm8550b-eusb2-repeater";
> >>> Just a doubt, Since the compatible can be same why we need to introduce a new compatible.
> >>> Should every soc have a compatible string?
> >> If it turns out that we need to add a quirk for PM7550BA 3 years down
> >> the line, this approach lets us fix it for users that never updated
> >> their device trees.
> >>
> >
> > Trying to make my understanding clear.
> >
> > eUSB repeater is a peripheral in the PMIC. Do we need a separate
> > compatible even if the peripheral is same in two different PMIC chips?
> > I believe eUSB peripheral has some identification registers to apply any
> > quirks in future.
> Perhaps, but keeping the compatible tied to the specific hardware is
> the way to go with the device tree. Most components don't have such
> information avaiable, and since at introduction time there wasn't
> any better name for it, "pm8550b-eusb2-repeater" was chosen.
>
Thanks for the clarification and guidance. We can introduce a new
compatible and use qcom,pm8550b-eusb2-repeater as generic binding.
Thanks,
Pavan
