On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:33:53AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/07/2022 20:48, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:50:30AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 12/07/2022 14:44, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> +properties:
> >>> + compatible:
> >>> + oneOf:
> >>> + - enum:
> >>> + - qcom,msm8916-mss-pil
> >>> +
> >>> + - const: qcom,q6v5-pil
> >>> + description: Deprecated, prefer using qcom,msm8916-mss-pil
> >>> + deprecated: true
> >>
> >> The last compatible does not seem applicable here. Aren't you moving
> >> only MSM8916 to new schema?
> >>
> >
> > "qcom,q6v5-pil" is exactly the same as "qcom,msm8916-mss-pil". It's just
> > a deprecated quite unfortunately chosen old name for the same thing. :)
> >
> > See these lines in the driver:
> >
> > { .compatible = "qcom,q6v5-pil", .data = &msm8916_mss},
> > { .compatible = "qcom,msm8916-mss-pil", .data = &msm8916_mss},
>
> Yeah, but previous bindings were not mentioning it alone, so this would
> not be a direct conversion.
>
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you correctly: What do you mean with
"the previous bindings were not mentioning it alone"? "qcom,q6v5-pil"
was listed as standalone compatible just like all the other compatibles:
- compatible:
Usage: required
Value type: <string>
Definition: must be one of:
"qcom,q6v5-pil", <----
"qcom,ipq8074-wcss-pil"
"qcom,qcs404-wcss-pil"
"qcom,msm8916-mss-pil", <----
"qcom,msm8974-mss-pil"
"qcom,msm8996-mss-pil"
"qcom,msm8998-mss-pil"
"qcom,sc7180-mss-pil"
"qcom,sc7280-mss-pil"
"qcom,sdm845-mss-pil"
The only non-conversion steps I did was to mark some of the redundant
bindings as deprecated (e.g. "memory-region" with 2 items vs "mba" and
"mpss" subnode, "qcom,msm8916-mss-pil" vs "qcom,q6v5-pil"). I can put
the deprecations in a separate patch if that clarifies the situation.
Thanks,
Stephan
