Re: [PATCH 02/16] dt-bindings: spi: Add bcmbca-hsspi controller support

[William Zhang <william.zhang@broadcom.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2613 bytes --]



On 01/11/2023 01:02 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/01/2023 23:18, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 1/10/23 00:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> No, it is discouraged in such forms. Family or IP block compatibles
>>>>> should be prepended with a specific compatible. There were many issues
>>>>> when people insisted on generic or family compatibles...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise we will have to have a compatible string with chip model for
>>>>>> each SoC even they share the same IP. We already have more than ten of
>>>>>> SoCs and the list will increase.  I don't see this is a good solution too.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will have to do it anyway even with generic fallback, so I don't get
>>>>> what is here to gain... I also don't get why Broadcom should be here
>>>>> special, different than others. Why it is not a good solution for
>>>>> Broadcom SoCs but it is for others?
>>>>>
>>>> I saw a few other vendors like these qcom ones:
>>>>     qcom,spi-qup.yaml
>>>>         - qcom,spi-qup-v1.1.1 # for 8660, 8960 and 8064
>>>>         - qcom,spi-qup-v2.1.1 # for 8974 and later
>>>>         - qcom,spi-qup-v2.2.1 # for 8974 v2 and later
>>>>     qcom,spi-qup.yaml
>>>>         const: qcom,geni-spi
>>>
>>> IP block version numbers are allowed when there is clear mapping between
>>> version and SoCs using it. This is the case for Qualcomm because there
>>> is such clear mapping documented and available for Qualcomm engineers
>>> and also some of us (although not public).
>>>
>>>> I guess when individual who only has one particular board/chip and is
>>>> not aware of the IP family,  it is understandable to use the chip
>>>> specific compatible string.
>>>
>>> Family of devices is not a versioned IP block.
>>
>> Would it be acceptable to define for instance:
>>
>> - compatible = "brcm,bcm6868-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";
> 
> Yes, this is perfectly valid. Although it does not solve William
> concerns because it requires defining specific compatibles for all of
> the SoCs.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
As I mentioned in another email,  I would be okay to use these 
compatibles to differentiate by ip rev and to conforms to brcm convention:
"brcm,bcmXYZ-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.0", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";
"brcm,bcmXYZ-hsspi", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.1", "brcm,bcmbca-hsspi";

In the two drivers I included in this series, it will be bound to 
brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.0 (in additional to brcm,bcm6328-hsspi) and 
brcm,bcmbca-hsspi-v1.1 respectively.  This way we don't need to update 
the driver with a new soc specific compatible whenever a new chips comes 
out.

Does this sound good to you?

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4212 bytes --]