[PATCH 0/2] update i.MX95 machine compatible

[PATCH 0/2] update i.MX95 machine compatible

[Peng Fan (OSS)]

i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible
firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller.
Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to
indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager.

Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
---
Peng Fan (2):
      dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 compatible
      arm64: dts: imx95-19x19-evk: Update machine compatible

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml    | 1 +
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-19x19-evk.dts | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
---
base-commit: 8155b4ef3466f0e289e8fcc9e6e62f3f4dceeac2
change-id: 20250104-imx9-machine-b3f78ec9f5b9

Best regards,
-- 
Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>

[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 compatible

[Peng Fan (OSS)]

From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>

i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible
firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller.
Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to
indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager.

Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
index 3713175548637ec17561c068932123c558776435..4f4def9ccdd6211461238d90bc0d1a85fd77a440 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
@@ -1354,6 +1354,7 @@ properties:
           - enum:
               - fsl,imx95-19x19-evk       # i.MX95 19x19 EVK Board
           - const: fsl,imx95
+          - const: fsl,imx-sm
 
       - description: i.MXRT1050 based Boards
         items:

-- 
2.37.1

[PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: imx95-19x19-evk: Update machine compatible

[Peng Fan (OSS)]

From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>

Add "fsl,imx-sm" fallback compatible string per dt binding update.

Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-19x19-evk.dts | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-19x19-evk.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-19x19-evk.dts
index 6086cb7fa5a0e14882be3a8c609725e15c179392..646b255cfc694dad2038674ce449708deb15b485 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-19x19-evk.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-19x19-evk.dts
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 
 / {
 	model = "NXP i.MX95 19X19 board";
-	compatible = "fsl,imx95-19x19-evk", "fsl,imx95";
+	compatible = "fsl,imx95-19x19-evk", "fsl,imx95", "fsl,imx-sm";
 
 	aliases {
 		gpio0 = &gpio1;

-- 
2.37.1

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/01/2025 13:13, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> 
> i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible
> firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller.
> Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to
> indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager.

I see little value in generic compatible like that. All these are
aarch64 so why not adding that compatible?

How this generic compatible would be used?

And by what exactly?

All this must be explained in the commit msg.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

RE: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 compatible

[Peng Fan]

> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95
> compatible
> 
> On 04/01/2025 13:13, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> >
> > i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible
> > firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller.
> > Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to
> > indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager.
> 
> I see little value in generic compatible like that. All these are
> aarch64 so why not adding that compatible?
> 
> How this generic compatible would be used?
> 
> And by what exactly?

There will be more i.MX9 chips with System Manager. I would
not expand the list here each time to support a new SoC.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-scmi.c#L508
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx-scmi.c#L290

> 
> All this must be explained in the commit msg.

If upper is ok, I will include in V2.

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 06/01/2025 03:51, Peng Fan wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95
>> compatible
>>
>> On 04/01/2025 13:13, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>>>
>>> i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible
>>> firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller.
>>> Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to
>>> indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager.
>>
>> I see little value in generic compatible like that. All these are
>> aarch64 so why not adding that compatible?
>>
>> How this generic compatible would be used?
>>
>> And by what exactly?
> 
> There will be more i.MX9 chips with System Manager. I would
> not expand the list here each time to support a new SoC.
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-scmi.c#L508
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx-scmi.c#L290

Problem is that compatible is way too generic to be used by Linux drivers.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 compatible

[Peng Fan]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 07:12:29AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>On 06/01/2025 03:51, Peng Fan wrote:
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95
>>> compatible
>>>
>>> On 04/01/2025 13:13, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>>>>
>>>> i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible
>>>> firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller.
>>>> Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to
>>>> indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager.
>>>
>>> I see little value in generic compatible like that. All these are
>>> aarch64 so why not adding that compatible?
>>>
>>> How this generic compatible would be used?
>>>
>>> And by what exactly?
>> 
>> There will be more i.MX9 chips with System Manager. I would
>> not expand the list here each time to support a new SoC.
>> 
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-scmi.c#L508
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx-scmi.c#L290
>
>Problem is that compatible is way too generic to be used by Linux drivers.

Is "fsl,imx9-sm" feasible here?

Thanks,
Peng

>
>Best regards,
>Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95 compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 09/01/2025 03:40, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 07:12:29AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 06/01/2025 03:51, Peng Fan wrote:
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Update i.MX95
>>>> compatible
>>>>
>>>> On 04/01/2025 13:13, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> i.MX95 features a System Controller and SCMI Spec 3.2 compatible
>>>>> firmware System Manager(SM) runs on the controller.
>>>>> Add "fsl,imx-sm" compatible string as fallback for "fsl,imx95" to
>>>>> indicate it is compatible with i.MX System Manager.
>>>>
>>>> I see little value in generic compatible like that. All these are
>>>> aarch64 so why not adding that compatible?
>>>>
>>>> How this generic compatible would be used?
>>>>
>>>> And by what exactly?
>>>
>>> There will be more i.MX9 chips with System Manager. I would
>>> not expand the list here each time to support a new SoC.
>>>
>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-scmi.c#L508
>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-imx-scmi.c#L290
>>
>> Problem is that compatible is way too generic to be used by Linux drivers.
> 
> Is "fsl,imx9-sm" feasible here?

It is better, but I am still not happy with the generic meaning of it.
You claim now that certain SoCs will be compatible with imx9-sm, so with
some sort of "sm". What is the meaning of sm in terms of ABI and
interfaces? What do you exactly define here? And what happens if some
other feature will require one more compatible and then one more?

You will have:
compatible = "fsl,imx95-19x19-evk", "fsl,imx95", "fsl,imx9-sm",
"fsl,imx9-foo", "fsl,imx9-bar", "fsl,imx9-whatnot";

You add compatible for some unspecified interface called "System
Manager" just to solve Linux driver issue.

Best regards,
Krzysztof