On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 04:46:08PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 04:03:41PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > qcom,q6v5.txt covers multiple SoCs with quite different binding > > requirements. Converting this into one DT schema would require > > several if statements, making the DT schema overall harder to > > read and understand. > > > > To avoid this, follow the example of SC7180/SC7280 and split > > "qcom,msm8916-mss-pil" (and the equivalent deprecated "qcom,q6v5-pil" > > compatible) into a separate DT schema. The schema is somewhat based > > on the one for SC7180/SC7280 but adjusted for the old platforms. > > > > Compared to the old plain text bindings, add missing documentation for > > the "bam-dmux" subnode and recommend one particular approach to specify > > the MBA/MPSS "memory-region" (the other one is marked as deprecated). > > > > Cc: Sireesh Kodali <sireeshkodali1@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Changes in v2: > > - Add blank lines between top-level properties > > - Drop "deprecated" in "oneOf" list, it is not clear if this is valid > > and it should be redundant since the properties itself are already > > marked as "deprecated" > > --- > > Like Sibi's patch series for SC7180/SC7820 [1] this is somewhat related > > to Sireesh's series that converts all of qcom,q6v5.txt [2] (with a lot > > of if statements). However, this series focuses on MSM8916/MSM8974 (or > > actually MSM8909) only. > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/1657020721-24939-1-git-send-email-quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220511161602.117772-7-sireeshkodali1@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Is that one abandoned or do we just get to review both approaches > without coordination? > I assumed the decision to make separate schemas rather than a big one was already made, since Sibi's series was applied and has already moved parts of qcom,q6v5.txt into separate schemas. Still, I did coordinate with Sireesh before submitting this patch and suggested that he can likely just add the new "qcom,msm8953-mss-pil" compatible from his series to the DT schema in this patch (the setup is also very similar). > I think you need a common q6v5 schema here with all the common > properties. Having the same property name with the type defined multiple > times is not great. In fact, I'm working on a check for finding those. Which properties would you move to a common schema? Most of the schema is just listing items for generic properties (interrupts, clocks, power domains, supplies, resets, memory-region, ...) and having them separated is intended to avoid lots of if statements in a common schema. What remains is maybe: - "qcom,smem-states", which is already used in several other schemas and could be possibly defined together with #qcom,smem-state-cells in some generic schema(?) - "qcom,halt-regs", "firmware-name", "smd-edge" are used by different Qualcomm remoteproc drivers, so they could possibly be defined in some common "qcom-remoteproc.yaml" schema(?) Thanks, Stephan
