On 20/12/2021 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:54 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Samsung SoC drivers changes for v5.17
>>
>> 1. Exynos ChipID: add Exynos7885 support.
>> 2. Exynos PMU: add Exynos850 support.
>> 3. Minor bindings cleanup.
>> 4. Add Exynos USIv2 (Universal Serial Interface) driver. The USI block is
>> a shared IP block between I2C, UART/serial and SPI. Basically one has
>> to choose which feature the USI block will support and later the
>> regular I2C/serial/SPI driver will bind and work.
>> This merges also one commit with dt-binding headers from my dts64
>> pull request.
>>
>> Together with a future serial driver change, this will break the ABI.
>>
>> Affected: Serial on ExynosAutov9 SADK and out-of-tree ExynosAutov9 boards
>>
>> Why: To properly and efficiently support the USI with new hierarchy
>> of USI-{serial,SPI,I2C} devicetree nodes.
>>
>> Rationale:
>> Recently added serial and USI support was short-sighted and did not
>> allow to smooth support of other features (SPI and I2C). Adding
>> support for USI-SPI and USI-I2C would effect in code duplication.
>> Adding support for different USI versions (currently supported is
>> USIv2 but support for v1 is planned) would cause even more code
>> duplication and create a solution difficult to maintain.
>> Since USI-serial and ExynosAutov9 have been added recently, are
>> considered fresh development features and there are no supported
>> products using them, the code/solution is being refactored in
>> non-backwards compatible way. The compatibility is not broken yet.
>> It will be when serial driver changes are accepted.
>> The ABI break was discussed with only known users of ExynosAutov9 and
>> received their permission.
>
> Thanks a lot for the detailed description, very helpful!
>
> I've applied pull requests 1 through 4, though it seems that once more
> the automated emails did not go out.
>
> I can't find the two defconfig patches you mentioned in the introductory
> mail, neither in patchwork nor in my inbox, I assume these were
> numbered 5/6 and 6/6?
>
Yes, these were patches 5/6 and 6/6 but maybe I made mistakes in address
list. Let me resend them now.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
