On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 06:06:11PM +0530, Md Danish Anwar wrote: > On 08/08/23 5:52 pm, Roger Quadros wrote: > > > > > > On 08/08/2023 15:18, Md Danish Anwar wrote: > >> On 08/08/23 5:38 pm, Conor Dooley wrote: > >>> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:30:43PM +0530, MD Danish Anwar wrote: > >>>> This series introduces Industrial Ethernet Peripheral (IEP) driver to > >>>> support timestamping of ethernet packets and thus support PTP and PPS > >>>> for PRU ICSSG ethernet ports. > >>>> > >>>> This series also adds 10M full duplex support for ICSSG ethernet driver. > >>>> > >>>> There are two IEP instances. IEP0 is used for packet timestamping while IEP1 > >>>> is used for 10M full duplex support. > >>>> > >>>> This is v2 of the series [v1]. It addresses comments made on [v1]. > >>>> This series is based on linux-next(#next-20230807). > >>>> > >>>> Changes from v1 to v2: > >>>> *) Addressed Simon's comment to fix reverse xmas tree declaration. Some APIs > >>>> in patch 3 and 4 were not following reverse xmas tree variable declaration. > >>>> Fixed it in this version. > >>>> *) Addressed Conor's comments and removed unsupported SoCs from compatible > >>>> comment in patch 1. > >>> > >>> I'm sorry I missed responding there before you sent v2, it was a bank > >>> holiday yesterday. I'm curious why you removed them, rather than just > >>> added them with a fallback to the ti,am654-icss-iep compatible, given > >>> your comment that "the same compatible currently works for all these > >>> 3 SoCs". > >> > >> I removed them as currently the driver is being upstreamed only for AM654x, > >> once I start up-streaming the ICSSG driver for AM64 and any other SoC. I will > >> add them here. If at that time we are still using same compatible, then I will > >> modify the comment otherwise add new compatible. > >> > >> As of now, I don't see the need of adding other SoCs in iep binding as IEP > >> driver up-streaming is only planned for AM654x as of now. > > > > But, is there any difference in IEP hardware/driver for the other SoCs? > > AFAIK the same IP is used on all SoCs. > > > > If there is no hardware/code change then we don't need to introduce a new compatible. > > The comment for all SoCs can already be there right from the start. > > > > There is no code change. The same compatible is used for other SoCs. Even if > the code is same I was thinking to keep the compatible as below now > > - ti,am654-icss-iep # for K3 AM65x SoCs > > and once other SoCs are introduced, I will just modify the comment, > > - ti,am654-icss-iep # for K3 AM65x, AM64x SoCs > > But we can also keep the all SoCs in comment right from start as well. I am > fine with both. > Conor / Roger, Please let me know which approach should I go with in next revision? IMO, "ti,am564-icss-iep" goes in the driver and the other SoCs get specific compatibles in the binding with "ti,am564-icss-iep" as a fallback.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
