[0/2] Apple mailbox fixup: switch to generic compatibles

Message

Hector Martin Dec. 9, 2021, 5:50 a.m. UTC

Hi folks,

Just a quick fix for the Apple mailbox compatible. Similar to [1], we
intend to use SoC-specific compatibles only for potential quirks, and
rely on a generic compatible to allow for forward-compatibility as long
as things don't break.

Since this isn't instantiated in any upstream DT yet, I think we can
afford the compatibility break now.

This also goes ahead and adds the compatible for the new t600x SoCs.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/[e-mail]/

Hector Martin (2):
  dt-bindings: mailbox: apple,mailbox: Add generic and t6000 compatibles
  mailbox: apple: Bind to generic compatibles

 .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/apple,mailbox.yaml   | 12 +++++++++---
 drivers/mailbox/apple-mailbox.c                      |  4 ++--
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Sven Peter Dec. 9, 2021, 4:33 p.m. UTC | #1

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, at 06:50, Hector Martin wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Just a quick fix for the Apple mailbox compatible. Similar to [1], we
> intend to use SoC-specific compatibles only for potential quirks, and
> rely on a generic compatible to allow for forward-compatibility as long
> as things don't break.

I vaguely remember a brief discussion about this and I think we thought about
using "t6000-asc", "t8103-asc" in this case since this specific mailbox hardware
was only introduced in the M1. I think Apple calls this variant ascwrap-v4
and m3wrap-v2.

Doing it like you suggested is also fine with me though.


Sven

Hector Martin Dec. 13, 2021, 3:55 a.m. UTC | #2

On 10/12/2021 01.33, Sven Peter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, at 06:50, Hector Martin wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Just a quick fix for the Apple mailbox compatible. Similar to [1], we
>> intend to use SoC-specific compatibles only for potential quirks, and
>> rely on a generic compatible to allow for forward-compatibility as long
>> as things don't break.
> 
> I vaguely remember a brief discussion about this and I think we thought about
> using "t6000-asc", "t8103-asc" in this case since this specific mailbox hardware
> was only introduced in the M1. I think Apple calls this variant ascwrap-v4
> and m3wrap-v2.
> 
> Doing it like you suggested is also fine with me though.

I think I remember that one... seems this is ascwrap-v4 in t8101 too, so 
not quite introduced with M1. But that one doesn't have m3wraps (or 
doesn't use them).

Since Apple do have some kind of sane versioning for these it seems, 
maybe we should follow their numbers and call them apple,asc-mailbox-v4 
and apple,m3-mailbox-v2?

Sven Peter Dec. 15, 2021, 8:43 a.m. UTC | #3

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 04:55, Hector Martin wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 01.33, Sven Peter wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, at 06:50, Hector Martin wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Just a quick fix for the Apple mailbox compatible. Similar to [1], we
>>> intend to use SoC-specific compatibles only for potential quirks, and
>>> rely on a generic compatible to allow for forward-compatibility as long
>>> as things don't break.
>> 
>> I vaguely remember a brief discussion about this and I think we thought about
>> using "t6000-asc", "t8103-asc" in this case since this specific mailbox hardware
>> was only introduced in the M1. I think Apple calls this variant ascwrap-v4
>> and m3wrap-v2.
>> 
>> Doing it like you suggested is also fine with me though.
>
> I think I remember that one... seems this is ascwrap-v4 in t8101 too, so 
> not quite introduced with M1. But that one doesn't have m3wraps (or 
> doesn't use them).
>
> Since Apple do have some kind of sane versioning for these it seems, 
> maybe we should follow their numbers and call them apple,asc-mailbox-v4 
> and apple,m3-mailbox-v2?

Sure, sounds good to me.


Sven