On 19/12/2023 10:57, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote: > > > On 12/19/2023 3:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 19/12/2023 01:50, Tengfei Fan wrote: >>> QCS8550 is derived from SM8550, it is mainly used in IoT scenarios. >> >> What are the differences? You need to describe the hardware, you have >> entire commit msg for something useful which will avoid such comments >> from reviewers. >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8550.dtsi | 6 ++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8550.dtsi >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8550.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8550.dtsi >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..254657f46c5e >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8550.dtsi >>> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ >>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause >>> +/* >>> + * Copyright (c) 2023, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved. >>> + */ >>> + >>> +#include "sm8550.dtsi" >> >> This is a weird file. I thought qcs8550 has differences from sm8550, >> e.g. lack of modem, so why do you claim you have here MPSS? > MPSS here in qcs8550 is a GPS only MPSS. Is it different or the same? Is the interface the same? So many questions and so little information. You have entire commit msg to explain this. > > QCS8550 will have a different firmware release with sm8550, and it will > have different memory reserved for the firmware to be used. > While firmware release along with memory map was not settled down yet. > That's why currently qcs8550.dtsi is an "empty file" and only include > sm8550.dtsi. As long as the firmware release is settled down, we will > have more detailed different node here. So the DTS is not really usable now? > > By the way, RB5 gen2 will also relies on the current qcs8550.dtsi, since > it is using the same qcs8550 soc, and will use the same firmware release. > > We have patch version2 remove the qcs8550.dtsi, and have SOM dtsi > qcs8550-aim300.dtsi include the sm8550.dtsi. While after discussion, our > understanding is that we can have an qcs8550.dtsi like this. Feel free > to let us know if it is not right understanding. > >> >> It's really confusing now. > > We can have a syncup to clear the confusing point if needed. :) >> The code and commit msg are confusing. I need to keep asking you to get any information. Best regards, Krzysztof
