diff mbox series

[11/22] pinctrl: qcom: sa8775p: Add support for SA8255p SoC

Message ID 20240828203721.2751904-12-quic_nkela@quicinc.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series arm64: qcom: Introduce SA8255p Ride platform | expand

Commit Message

Nikunj Kela Aug. 28, 2024, 8:37 p.m. UTC
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(+)

Comments

Krzysztof Kozlowski Aug. 29, 2024, 7:29 a.m. UTC | #1
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
Nikunj Kela Aug. 29, 2024, 2:17 p.m. UTC | #2
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
Krzysztof Kozlowski Aug. 30, 2024, 9:52 a.m. UTC | #3
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
Nikunj Kela Sept. 3, 2024, 3:24 p.m. UTC | #4
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
Krzysztof Kozlowski Sept. 3, 2024, 3:34 p.m. UTC | #5
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 mbox series

Patch

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", },
 	{ },
 };