| Message ID | 20230720084534.6461-2-quic_sridsn@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add initial support for various RDPs of IPQ9574 family | expand |
On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: > Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 > family of SoCs. > > AL02-C3 - rdp437 > AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy > AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch > AL02-C11 - rdp467 > AL02-C12 - rdp455 > AL02-C13 - rdp459 > AL02-C15 - rdp457 > AL02-C16 - rdp456 > AL02-C17 - rdp469 > AL02-C19 - rdp461 > AL03-C2 - rdp458 > > Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml > index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml > @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | > adp > ap-al01-c1 > ap-al02-c2 > + ap-al02-c3 > ap-al02-c6 > ap-al02-c7 > ap-al02-c8 > ap-al02-c9 > + ap-al02-c10 > + ap-al02-c11 > + ap-al02-c12 > + ap-al02-c13 > + ap-al02-c15 > + ap-al02-c16 > + ap-al02-c17 > + ap-al02-c19 Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. Why do we need to do this? What's the point? > + ap-al03-c2 > ap-mi01.2 > ap-mi01.3 > ap-mi01.6 > @@ -365,10 +375,20 @@ properties: > - enum: > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al01-c1 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c2 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c3 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c6 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c7 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c8 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c9 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c10 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c11 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c12 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c13 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c15 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c16 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c17 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c19 This looks fake. Sorry, but these boards have no differences. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: >> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 >> family of SoCs. >> >> AL02-C3 - rdp437 >> AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy >> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch >> AL02-C11 - rdp467 >> AL02-C12 - rdp455 >> AL02-C13 - rdp459 >> AL02-C15 - rdp457 >> AL02-C16 - rdp456 >> AL02-C17 - rdp469 >> AL02-C19 - rdp461 >> AL03-C2 - rdp458 >> >> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | >> adp >> ap-al01-c1 >> ap-al02-c2 >> + ap-al02-c3 >> ap-al02-c6 >> ap-al02-c7 >> ap-al02-c8 >> ap-al02-c9 >> + ap-al02-c10 >> + ap-al02-c11 >> + ap-al02-c12 >> + ap-al02-c13 >> + ap-al02-c15 >> + ap-al02-c16 >> + ap-al02-c17 >> + ap-al02-c19 > > Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. > > Why do we need to do this? What's the point? Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually going to be supported and useful. If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device trees upstream. Konrad
On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: >>> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 >>> family of SoCs. >>> >>> AL02-C3 - rdp437 >>> AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy >>> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch >>> AL02-C11 - rdp467 >>> AL02-C12 - rdp455 >>> AL02-C13 - rdp459 >>> AL02-C15 - rdp457 >>> AL02-C16 - rdp456 >>> AL02-C17 - rdp469 >>> AL02-C19 - rdp461 >>> AL03-C2 - rdp458 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | >>> adp >>> ap-al01-c1 >>> ap-al02-c2 >>> + ap-al02-c3 >>> ap-al02-c6 >>> ap-al02-c7 >>> ap-al02-c8 >>> ap-al02-c9 >>> + ap-al02-c10 >>> + ap-al02-c11 >>> + ap-al02-c12 >>> + ap-al02-c13 >>> + ap-al02-c15 >>> + ap-al02-c16 >>> + ap-al02-c17 >>> + ap-al02-c19 >> Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. >> >> Why do we need to do this? What's the point? > Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test > prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually > going to be supported and useful. > > If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device > trees upstream. > > Konrad These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations. IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version , will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly Thanks, Sridharan
On 26/07/2023 07:03, Sridharan S N wrote: > > On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: >>>> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 >>>> family of SoCs. >>>> >>>> AL02-C3 - rdp437 >>>> AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy >>>> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch >>>> AL02-C11 - rdp467 >>>> AL02-C12 - rdp455 >>>> AL02-C13 - rdp459 >>>> AL02-C15 - rdp457 >>>> AL02-C16 - rdp456 >>>> AL02-C17 - rdp469 >>>> AL02-C19 - rdp461 >>>> AL03-C2 - rdp458 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | >>>> adp >>>> ap-al01-c1 >>>> ap-al02-c2 >>>> + ap-al02-c3 >>>> ap-al02-c6 >>>> ap-al02-c7 >>>> ap-al02-c8 >>>> ap-al02-c9 >>>> + ap-al02-c10 >>>> + ap-al02-c11 >>>> + ap-al02-c12 >>>> + ap-al02-c13 >>>> + ap-al02-c15 >>>> + ap-al02-c16 >>>> + ap-al02-c17 >>>> + ap-al02-c19 >>> Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. >>> >>> Why do we need to do this? What's the point? >> Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test >> prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually >> going to be supported and useful. >> >> If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device >> trees upstream. >> >> Konrad > > These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations. > IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use > all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version , > will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly So still no answer why do we need to list it as possible boards. Especially that it messes with compatible style, because c[1-9] looks like board version. I suggest don't add these board types and drop existing ones. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 7/26/2023 12:51 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/07/2023 07:03, Sridharan S N wrote: >> On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: >>>>> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 >>>>> family of SoCs. >>>>> >>>>> AL02-C3 - rdp437 >>>>> AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy >>>>> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch >>>>> AL02-C11 - rdp467 >>>>> AL02-C12 - rdp455 >>>>> AL02-C13 - rdp459 >>>>> AL02-C15 - rdp457 >>>>> AL02-C16 - rdp456 >>>>> AL02-C17 - rdp469 >>>>> AL02-C19 - rdp461 >>>>> AL03-C2 - rdp458 >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>>> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>>> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | >>>>> adp >>>>> ap-al01-c1 >>>>> ap-al02-c2 >>>>> + ap-al02-c3 >>>>> ap-al02-c6 >>>>> ap-al02-c7 >>>>> ap-al02-c8 >>>>> ap-al02-c9 >>>>> + ap-al02-c10 >>>>> + ap-al02-c11 >>>>> + ap-al02-c12 >>>>> + ap-al02-c13 >>>>> + ap-al02-c15 >>>>> + ap-al02-c16 >>>>> + ap-al02-c17 >>>>> + ap-al02-c19 >>>> Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. >>>> >>>> Why do we need to do this? What's the point? >>> Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test >>> prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually >>> going to be supported and useful. >>> >>> If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device >>> trees upstream. >>> >>> Konrad >> These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations. >> IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use >> all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version , >> will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly > > So still no answer why do we need to list it as possible boards. > Especially that it messes with compatible style, because c[1-9] looks > like board version. > > I suggest don't add these board types and drop existing ones. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Apologize for the late reply. IPQ bootloader doesn't need these info. we will send the patch to drop the existing ones Thanks, Sridharan
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | adp ap-al01-c1 ap-al02-c2 + ap-al02-c3 ap-al02-c6 ap-al02-c7 ap-al02-c8 ap-al02-c9 + ap-al02-c10 + ap-al02-c11 + ap-al02-c12 + ap-al02-c13 + ap-al02-c15 + ap-al02-c16 + ap-al02-c17 + ap-al02-c19 + ap-al03-c2 ap-mi01.2 ap-mi01.3 ap-mi01.6 @@ -365,10 +375,20 @@ properties: - enum: - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al01-c1 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c2 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c3 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c6 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c7 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c8 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c9 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c10 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c11 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c12 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c13 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c15 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c16 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c17 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c19 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al03-c2 - const: qcom,ipq9574 - description: Sierra Wireless MangOH Green with WP8548 Module
Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 family of SoCs. AL02-C3 - rdp437 AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch AL02-C11 - rdp467 AL02-C12 - rdp455 AL02-C13 - rdp459 AL02-C15 - rdp457 AL02-C16 - rdp456 AL02-C17 - rdp469 AL02-C19 - rdp461 AL03-C2 - rdp458 Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> --- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)