From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E9BA1DC9B5; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 17:15:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751994917; cv=none; b=f8YvEPg6vti1urf2yg0mrloE1p+gg2zHDissathVDP8sEoLU5R9ST1Ixwlbsi5WuJ2Z9B+pDTHR7cslIOl5JpiB8dWFD9Nnb43/DWZ+NNtznASgmB1g0ArdeFPYGZQEMJQEb2JtASocKAWvtbWrR4V4m7qe0VIVnuIf9rPg/1Fo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751994917; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zN56Kcanmm2CK6PlyASbW3cQE6ADHzafSCUuBxwC2dY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=B6pewuxpc1+tpALTGiUyjVatU7k8iCrMFwvHn86eToBkohMkKLGk/z8pVmo3PKuEzcXQp98SwxIoiwDBqfx2RJbx9Gj4dEAzt7eIQcyrBjNRaIvCoyCI4Pqm9ps8MwbtJEKr8ch1V5lQbX2K4VFg9s72RUyPVaN/uLJnM17529Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=fnPxz3QT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="fnPxz3QT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF322C4CEED; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 17:15:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1751994917; bh=zN56Kcanmm2CK6PlyASbW3cQE6ADHzafSCUuBxwC2dY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fnPxz3QTmKrnPuKFneFht/NRDKDsD+03YX3V7I+FRPaggTCn1DWx+XA0g34uivyTV odRko5WyDqDPAUIRXHjw5k6wNeY7CEXWhxwczwutDGalGgsX5ipQ5PH/rWiPlyC+pn WtfWqtRxtJTLG1yWk5r2E5KfgJHNiy/YGBx+ljwsfSRsECeKZwMIdqUzUy+XD6llCm q4g2HlwDbaaBhN30eh3JOBY4Tng6F5sbeDuPZ8ydx7SZgvtm+cInudZbCWPK5YiHGl EINgcElxaLfa/KeT4B8WuGzNWiPz/+GjJjHsEHSmVUSm8PVxJps20YraFSW96YAe9M /fqFxIcYeyzjg== Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 12:15:15 -0500 From: Rob Herring To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Konrad Dybcio , Luca Weiss , Linus Walleij , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: document the Milos Top Level Mode Multiplexer Message-ID: <20250708171515.GA640511-robh@kernel.org> References: <20250702-sm7635-pinctrl-v2-0-c138624b9924@fairphone.com> <20250702-sm7635-pinctrl-v2-1-c138624b9924@fairphone.com> <20250703-daring-burgundy-limpet-a1c97e@krzk-bin> <424285fb-14a0-452b-8d18-6165d2a78497@kernel.org> <3d3g2sq4r7pruu4c2sl2itclx7xuja6inasaicm67t4sx6u5fl@xq5g7h4rabno> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3d3g2sq4r7pruu4c2sl2itclx7xuja6inasaicm67t4sx6u5fl@xq5g7h4rabno> On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 12:31:46PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 01:26:11PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 03/07/2025 12:04, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 03-Jul-25 09:44, Luca Weiss wrote: > > >> On Thu Jul 3, 2025 at 9:41 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >>> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 05:56:16PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote: > > >>>> Document the Top Level Mode Multiplexer on the Milos Platform. > > >>> > > >>> What is Milos platform? Does it have some sort of model number how we > > >>> usually expect? Wasn't this SM7325 or similar? > > >>> > > Milos is the actual name of the SoC. > > > >>> The problem with such new naming that it awfully sounds like family > > >>> names, so just expand the name and explain it. > > >> > > >> Please go argue with Bjorn/Konrad about this, wasn't my idea. > > >> > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/aGMI1Zv6D+K+vWZL@hu-bjorande-lv.qualcomm.com/ > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/b98d305b-247f-415b-8675-50d073452feb@oss.qualcomm.com/ > > > > > > Milos is the "real-est" name of this silicon. All the associated > > > S[AM]|QC[MS]s are just variations of it, with different fusing. > > > > > > You'll stumble upon it across e.g. firmware build strings, as > > > well as in any documentation pieces. > > > > > > There are various internal reasons for the switch, but the most > > > obvious external-facing one is not to have the user buy a devkit > > > and wonder whether they should use QCS9100 or QCS9075 DTB, and > > > why there's zero drivers code for these magic numbers (they > > > include SA8775P). We can simply point them to "codename" and > > > all C code will refer to it as well. > > > > These are different SoCs, optionally with different firmware, so they > > cannot use the same top-level compatible chain. I hope you did not > > propose that. > > > > No they are not different SoCs, and that's the problem with the current > naming scheme. > > > For me list like "qcs9100, sa8775p" is clear enough, but if you want > > "qcs9100, koala-bear" or "brown-bear, koala-bear" it is fine as well. > > You just cannot use koala-bear for all of them. > > > > It looks "clear enough", but it's wrong. The problem is that sa8775p, > qca9100, and qcs9075 are the "same" hardware and firmware. > > The difference between sa8775p and qcs9100 is the reserved-memory map, > the difference between qcs9100 and qcs9075 is one IP block being status > = "okay" vs "disabled", due to fuses. > > It's exactly the same problem we first saw in QRB5165, but we let the > problem explode. Now we use the names sc7280, sm7325, qcm6490, and > qcs6490 for the same SoC. > > Using the SoC's actual name here will remove the need for playing games > with DT includes etc to try to map things to the current naming scheme. > > > The one case that isn't being taking care of such naming is when there > are differences in the firmware. But as can be seen in the "sc7280" > familiy, those software differences doesn't align with the chosen names. > And even within a given SoC, with a (overall) given firmware, the > reserved-memory map ends up differing. > > > So, the name of the SoC in this patch is "Milos". We already have ways > of dealing with firmware and/or hardware variations within one SoC, we > should use them (and refine them as necessary), rather than pretending > that something like SM7325 will define those properties. I for one prefer 1 compatible per die. We often don't know if that's the case, but in this case we do so let's take advantage of it. Rob