On 10/4/2022 10:52 AM, Melody Olvera wrote: > On 10/4/2022 2:36 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 09:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 04/10/2022 00:14, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 01:02, Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 10/1/2022 4:25 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 01/10/2022 05:06, Melody Olvera wrote: >>>>>>> Add compatibles for scm driver for QDU1000 and QRU1000 platforms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml | 2 ++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml >>>>>>> index c5b76c9f7ad0..b47a5dda3c3e 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml >>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml >>>>>>> @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ properties: >>>>>>> - qcom,scm-sm8250 >>>>>>> - qcom,scm-sm8350 >>>>>>> - qcom,scm-sm8450 >>>>>>> + - qcom,scm-qdu1000 >>>>>>> + - qcom,scm-qru1000 >>>> I think after seeing all the patchsets it's time to ask the following >>>> question. Do we really need a duplicate compatibility families: >>>> qdu1000 vs qru1000? I'd suggest using a single set of compatibile >>>> strings in most of the cases. >>>> Settle down onto a single name (qdu,qru, qdru, whatever) and define >>>> distinct compat strings only when there is an actual difference? >>>> >>>> E.g .we don't have separate compatible strings for all the sda660, >>>> apq8096, etc. unless this is required by the corresponding hardware >>>> block not being compatible with corresponding sdm or msm counterpart. >>>> >>> I am not that fluent in Qualcomm naming, so let me ask - what are the >>> differences between QDU and QRU? >>> >>> For compatible (and/or similar) devices the general recommendation is to >>> have specific compatibles followed by fallback. Even if devices are >>> very, very, very similar, usually the recommendation still stays. >> Well, true. But in some cases we handle this by using a single set of >> compatibles. Consider e.g. sa8155 vs sm8150 (sa8155 overrides just few >> compats that differ). Or qrb5165 vs sm8250 (there is no separate >> qrb5165.dtsi). APQ8096 (#include "msm8996.dtsi"). Etc. >> >> I'd say this really depends on the actual difference between qru and qdu. > To add some clarification, there's pretty little functional > difference between the QDU (Distributed Unit) and the QRU > (Radio Unit); they're largely the same SoC from the kernel's > standpoint. I wasn't sure if it made more sense to separate > the compat strings or mash them together (using qdru to > specify that it applies to both), so I kept separate compat > strings in case there was a separate RU/DU use case down > the line and also to avoid some confusion (I guess that > didn't work though). It makes the most sense in my mind > to just use the qdru compat string for the things that apply > to both SoCs (which is most of what's submitted currently) and > then we can do qdu/qru specific override strings for more > specific drivers. > Thanks, Melody Fixed formatting.
