On 08/08/23 6:15 pm, Conor Dooley wrote: > 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. Sure. Then as for now, "ti,am654-icss-iep" goes in the driver, I will keep the dt binding compatible as below (as it was earlier in v1.) - ti,am654-icss-iep # for K3 AM65x, J721E and AM64x SoCs When new SoCs are introduced I can add specific bindings for them with "ti,am654-icss-iep" being the fallback. -- Thanks and Regards, Danish.
