Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: spi: Qualcomm Quad SPI(QSPI) documentation

[Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephen
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Doug Anderson (2018-09-21 10:40:14)
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:31 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoting Ryan Case (2018-09-20 15:40:54)
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qcom-qspi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qcom-qspi.txt
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..ecfb1e2bd520
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/qcom,spi-qcom-qspi.txt
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> > > > +Qualcomm Quad Serial Peripheral Interface (QSPI)
> > > > +
> > > > +The QSPI controller allows SPI protocol communication in single, dual, or quad
> > > > +wire transmission modes for read/write access to slaves such as NOR flash.
> > > > +
> > > > +Required properties:
> > > > +- compatible:  Should contain:
> > > > +               "qcom,sdm845-qspi"
> > >
> > > Does someone have a more generic compatible string that can be added
> > > here to indicate the type of quad SPI controller this is? I really doubt
> > > this is a one-off hardware block for the specific SDM845 SoC.
> >
> > The compatible string used to be "qcom,qspi-v1".  ...but Rob Herring
> > requested [1] "an SoC specific compatible string".  While we could do
> > a compatible string like:
> >
> >   "qcom,sdm845-qspi", "qcom,qspi-v1".
> >
> > I'm curious if that buys us anything.  From all my previous experience
> > with device tree it is fine to name a compatible string for a
> > component based on the first SoC that used it.  If we later find that
> > this is also used in an "msm1234" we could always later do the
> > compatible string for that device as:
> >
> >   "qcom, msm1234-qspi", "qcom,sdm845-qspi"
> >
> > ...and we don't need to try to come up with a generic name.
> > Obviously, though, I'll cede to whatever Rob says here though.
> >
>
> It seems that everybody has misunderstood my email. Let me try to
> clarify.
>
> I'm not saying to replace the sdm845 qspi compatible with a generic one.
> I'm recommending that a generic one is added in addition to the SoC
> specific one. That way, we get to put the generic compatible string in
> the driver and not need to update the driver compatible string array
> each time a new SoC comes out with a new compatible string.
>
> If it turns out later that we need to handle some bug in that specific
> SoC compatible string then we're good to go and we can handle it by
> matching the more specific SoC version compatible.

I don't think I misunderstood.  I was suggesting that I believe that
the device tree way is to use the first SoC as the generic one.  In
other words to support sdm845 and msm1234, we do:

A)
on sdm845: "qcom,sdm845-qspi"
on msm1234 (later): "qcom, msm1234-qspi", "qcom,sdm845-qspi"

What you are suggesting (I think) is:

B)
on sdm845: "qcom,sdm845-qspi", "qcom,qspi-v1"
on msm1234 (later): "qcom, msm1234-qspi", "qcom,qspi-v1"

If Rob likes B) better then it's fine with me, it was just my
understanding that A) was the suggested way to do things (even if it
is decidedly non-symmetric).


NOTE: Even with A) there's no need to update the driver for msm1234
since it has the fallback to sdm845.

-Doug