On 7/10/2024 9:27 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 08:46:19PM +0800, Tengfei Fan wrote: >> Document the compatible string for USB phy found in Qualcomm QCS9100 >> SoC. >> QCS9100 is drived from SA8775p. Currently, both the QCS9100 and SA8775p >> platform use non-SCMI resource. In the future, the SA8775p platform will >> move to use SCMI resources and it will have new sa8775p-related device >> tree. Consequently, introduce "qcom,qcs9100-usb-hs-phy" to describe >> non-SCMI based USB phy. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Introduce support for the QCS9100 SoC device tree (DTSI) and the >> QCS9100 RIDE board DTS. The QCS9100 is a variant of the SA8775p. >> While the QCS9100 platform is still in the early design stage, the >> QCS9100 RIDE board is identical to the SA8775p RIDE board, except it >> mounts the QCS9100 SoC instead of the SA8775p SoC. >> >> The QCS9100 SoC DTSI is directly renamed from the SA8775p SoC DTSI, and >> all the compatible strings will be updated from "SA8775p" to "QCS9100". >> The QCS9100 device tree patches will be pushed after all the device tree >> bindings and device driver patches are reviewed. > > I'm not convinced this is not just pointless churn. Aren't we going to > end up with 2 compatible strings for everything? SCMI should just change > the providers, but otherwise the consumers are the same. I suppose if > clocks are abstracted into power-domains (an abuse IMO) then the > bindings change. > > Why do we need to support both SCMI and not-SCMI for the same chip? IOT SKU of this SOC is using the non-SCMI solution and Auto SKU of this SOC is using the SCMI based solution due to additional safety requirements. -- ---Trilok Soni
