| Message ID | 20240828203721.2751904-12-quic_nkela@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm64: qcom: Introduce SA8255p Ride platform | expand |
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:37:10PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote: > SA8255p platform uses the same TLMM block as used in SA8775p, > though the pins are split between Firmware VM and Linux VM. > let's add SA8255p specific compatible. The change suggests devices are fully compatible, but above description does not. This looks conflicting. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 8/29/2024 12:29 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:37:10PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote: >> SA8255p platform uses the same TLMM block as used in SA8775p, >> though the pins are split between Firmware VM and Linux VM. >> let's add SA8255p specific compatible. > The change suggests devices are fully compatible, but above description > does not. > > This looks conflicting. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Hi Krzysztof, Thanks for reviewing patches. TLMM HW block is exactly same as used in SA8775p however ownership of pins can be split between firmware VM and Linux VM. It is upto devices to decide what pins they want to use in what VM. I will extend the subject with same description as used in DT binding. Regards, -Nikunj
On 29/08/2024 16:17, Nikunj Kela wrote: > > On 8/29/2024 12:29 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:37:10PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>> SA8255p platform uses the same TLMM block as used in SA8775p, >>> though the pins are split between Firmware VM and Linux VM. >>> let's add SA8255p specific compatible. >> The change suggests devices are fully compatible, but above description >> does not. >> >> This looks conflicting. >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > Hi Krzysztof, > > Thanks for reviewing patches. TLMM HW block is exactly same as used in > SA8775p however ownership of pins can be split between firmware VM and > Linux VM. It is upto devices to decide what pins they want to use in > what VM. I will extend the subject with same description as used in DT > binding. So there is no difference? Then devices should be made compatible with fallback. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 8/30/2024 2:52 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 29/08/2024 16:17, Nikunj Kela wrote: >> On 8/29/2024 12:29 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:37:10PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>>> SA8255p platform uses the same TLMM block as used in SA8775p, >>>> though the pins are split between Firmware VM and Linux VM. >>>> let's add SA8255p specific compatible. >>> The change suggests devices are fully compatible, but above description >>> does not. >>> >>> This looks conflicting. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> Thanks for reviewing patches. TLMM HW block is exactly same as used in >> SA8775p however ownership of pins can be split between firmware VM and >> Linux VM. It is upto devices to decide what pins they want to use in >> what VM. I will extend the subject with same description as used in DT >> binding. > So there is no difference? Then devices should be made compatible with > fallback. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Yes, I get your point now. I will discuss internally. I am leaning towards using sa8775p-tlmm compatible in SA8255p TLMM node so there is no need for adding new compatible. Will drop the two pincontrol related patches from the series in next version if agreed internally. Thanks, -Nikunj
On 03/09/2024 17:24, Nikunj Kela wrote: > > On 8/30/2024 2:52 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 29/08/2024 16:17, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>> On 8/29/2024 12:29 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:37:10PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>>>> SA8255p platform uses the same TLMM block as used in SA8775p, >>>>> though the pins are split between Firmware VM and Linux VM. >>>>> let's add SA8255p specific compatible. >>>> The change suggests devices are fully compatible, but above description >>>> does not. >>>> >>>> This looks conflicting. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Krzysztof >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> Thanks for reviewing patches. TLMM HW block is exactly same as used in >>> SA8775p however ownership of pins can be split between firmware VM and >>> Linux VM. It is upto devices to decide what pins they want to use in >>> what VM. I will extend the subject with same description as used in DT >>> binding. >> So there is no difference? Then devices should be made compatible with >> fallback. >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > Yes, I get your point now. I will discuss internally. I am leaning > towards using sa8775p-tlmm compatible in SA8255p TLMM node so there is > no need for adding new compatible. Will drop the two pincontrol related > patches from the series in next version if agreed internally. > You need compatible followed by fallback (and therefore drop driver change). That's how compatibility is expressed. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sa8775p.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sa8775p.c index 5459c0c681a2..9a48abdf9b71 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sa8775p.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sa8775p.c @@ -1519,6 +1519,7 @@ static int sa8775p_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) } static const struct of_device_id sa8775p_pinctrl_of_match[] = { + { .compatible = "qcom,sa8255p-tlmm", }, { .compatible = "qcom,sa8775p-tlmm", }, { }, };
SA8255p platform uses the same TLMM block as used in SA8775p, though the pins are split between Firmware VM and Linux VM. let's add SA8255p specific compatible. Signed-off-by: Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@quicinc.com> --- drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sa8775p.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)