On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 11:49:48AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2023, at 23:23, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 10:19:50PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > >> Hey Varshini, > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 01:32:37AM +0530, Varshini Rajendran wrote: > >> > Document the support added for the Advanced interrupt controller(AIC) > >> > chip in the sam9x7 soc family > >> > >> Please do not add new family based compatibles, but rather use per-soc > >> compatibles instead. > > > > These things leave me penally confused. Afaiu, sam9x60 is a particular s/penally/perennially/ > > SoC. sam9x7 is actually a family, containing sam9x70, sam9x72 and > > sam9x75. It would appear to me that each should have its own compatible, > > no? > > I think the usual way this works is that the sam9x7 refers to the > SoC design as in what is actually part of the chip, whereas the 70, > 72 and 75 models are variants that have a certain subset of the > features enabled. > > If that is the case here, then referring to the on-chip parts by > the sam9x7 name makes sense, and this is similar to what we do > on TI AM-series chips. If it is the case that what differentiates them is having bits chopped off, and there's no implementation differences that seems fair. > There is a remaining risk that a there would be a future > sam9x71/73/74/76/... product based on a new chip that uses > incompatible devices, but at that point we can still use the > more specific model number to identify those without being > ambiguous. The same thing can of course happen when a SoC > vendor reuses a specific name of a prior product with an update > chip that has software visible changes. > > I'd just leave this up to Varshini and the other at91 maintainers > here, provided they understand the exact risks. Ye, seems fair to me. Nicolas/Claudiu etc, is there a convention to use the "0" model as the compatible (like the 9x60 did) or have "random" things been done so far? > It's different for the parts that are listed as just sam9x60 > compatible in the DT, I think those clearly need to have sam9x7 > in the compatible list, but could have the sam9x60 identifier > as a fallback if the hardware is compatible. Aye.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
