From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yb1-f172.google.com (mail-yb1-f172.google.com [209.85.219.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2366CDDC for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 11:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709294044; cv=none; b=Y5N/a5f3dNf4yTJhg10QAEaq0+0MHdbUFfH2+evpxIdb9YkRdzdfMfo/t27hMgV65yVvCVNSo6ZBLHxFrQGmhcRafY57KxPWvdFolpONy09iT9lwVOs0+pi6y86qyXDXiB1n2kkNxSPo7JT2AjBh4yqSkFLNBXzHub2h5WBmOtI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709294044; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FqfgiE8rTsjv2yZ13++4/tBbMd5srM6+IqM9XHJmupc=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=SlETm4+wHJ3tBY9iuNpVyQmQWLTEnSXB2Tp6tULoFIjf428wyL4ncfl35M9fbg+3aKKoKUM18yGshTn2B3ZwXyeRq5KWm2QEICKCdJMvJyF/FemyEZYf9r/aSxc4Epqw11vV97PGM6+OP2oEuhXva2+QJqra5RaZDbuKUavo/vE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=BGxBGYWT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="BGxBGYWT" Received: by mail-yb1-f172.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dc236729a2bso1863321276.0 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2024 03:54:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1709294042; x=1709898842; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yso0ivGAInKc5Pvs5qCHC4r4ySELDjTsVXE+O+LwQ0A=; b=BGxBGYWTmEW8aMCsng6Ue0IHMrpPluBogwfjxtBp+1vdwx/eOulBamlknkVcaWlCSi 4aSFM4Wepjgeyl6+wY22ypgAVZf5cw7FGJxXxFIki1FSLYidRfCHYnTCXWBfYMNRlu/3 205G+gwI+jdFGbuOFGPxuaqUqL3aocf6YU6yxx9w2CE8+5YF/Y7NDeT5Ecm/dxpI+BDv XUuoOtzh2e3pPzEzS4rTI8+4gugdJiNG5lGvofMgjerBBD4pSOXSqBHM/IYDPATsgKcq Rng5jb0MNdfstsK4bimMBINN844syW0IxZ8BY1MNwIAL8oD9mzgrbNlbxrVjXyEdUY0M 0AAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709294042; x=1709898842; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=yso0ivGAInKc5Pvs5qCHC4r4ySELDjTsVXE+O+LwQ0A=; b=xFiYo3Rmi2cXa5/kWD1Q09UnGqf6WEJidNbgOmnFyQWgaX4x0Hupgj2U2nnwAaGCfb DtFbimY2X+F1a8Wwtt06m+5EBWDA6x6EeLkwvhP4Cc+w471svBPA0aD83k1Tz0MlfZS1 BEmDk+TYmf3srgT1Bt1wFoFt6M1v2lO3HkNUw92EPRfaL9PvWMiMUba2mQvG972Tc4u/ zmYmsA2mIhX95AuN29o7S5NkZVmFFq/mQ9HIFsbe6T6OEW91bhA2mekHww35qRyepYSz HNWyzPPW7ShFuannIVEGEDShAihgJsaLEKgqx29R+E1N1Xce/ASRxT1I09NS1T4TY5dc EPPw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWGRFu7nwAh8gJUbyHp28ey8PPewCH8tx5LFd9Ryl68hf2d9iZuIL6QasZFTYyF186d81LamRAHVxfI6j58SDsLl6pCV1bMyjTbRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz8AW7IIow10h4IPTPA8zkNnRlGKrzRI08714fa0Zhx+GuxlxPR BcFVCuorkixEILjP6Y/2w6K1WCnWPd0KiG+MlCRqF3NN3FBlt1rukk1RBfFlAXLF/h+ZUhh2Ohf licEPHLs7EkgUNjXEYE8h+gEkYW9LgFAAcI7rmQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFkhH15rTpXomOcTL/sca0OLI+GKFzhdjujIJXL6fL++bosqGfhJfcmsdoBf/YIv5eeJKJPfDAPG5EKn/NWJB0= X-Received: by 2002:a25:ae58:0:b0:dcd:1436:a4ce with SMTP id g24-20020a25ae58000000b00dcd1436a4cemr1245758ybe.23.1709294042085; Fri, 01 Mar 2024 03:54:02 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7910de2d-6184-4f78-a286-d2e6e50c7a36@quicinc.com> <16db3da8-dfdd-4e06-b348-33e9197fe18d@quicinc.com> <32092ee9-018f-4cfb-950e-26c69764f35a@quicinc.com> <94a62a78-961a-4286-804c-fc0b9098b8a1@quicinc.com> <20240228140239.gkzcytw6cmb4opja@bogus> <799268ac-7ffb-4b99-b037-d5bb93d37f13@linaro.org> <20240228160925.fcitj2yz7hisidsl@bogus> <2b0a11f4-f54e-461c-91e7-8f313d91abe8@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <2b0a11f4-f54e-461c-91e7-8f313d91abe8@linaro.org> From: Ulf Hansson Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 12:53:25 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: DT Query on "New Compatible vs New Property" To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: Sudeep Holla , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Nikunj Kela , Manivannan Sadhasivam , krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, Vincent Guittot , robh+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, "Prasad Sodagudi (QUIC)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 18:11, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > > > On 28/02/2024 16:22, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 17:09, Sudeep Holla wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 03:20:44PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 28/02/2024 15:02, Sudeep Holla wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:27:30PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 15:24, Nikunj Kela wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Sudeep, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would like to conclude on this thread. I was discussing this with Ulf. > >>>>>> He thinks that using the domain names to identify if platform is > >>>>>> abstracting clocks etc. are not scalable and sufficient. Instead he > >>>>>> thinks that the change in the interface to OS(and FW) is a good > >>>>>> candidate for a new compatible(even though HW is same). Even for SCMI, > >>>>>> we do change phandle in DT to SCMI protocol phandle so that is like a > >>>>>> different platform altogether. Could you please let me know if you still > >>>>>> think that using a different compatible in this case is not warranted. > >>>>> > >>>>> My apologies for joining this discussion at this late state. Yet, I > >>>>> just wanted to confirm what Nikunj said above. > >>>>> > >>>>> In the end we are indeed talking about adding a new platform, as > >>>>> changing the FW interface from a QCOM proprietary one into SCMI, > >>>>> simply requires updates to a DTS file(s) that is platform specific. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The way I read this sounds like all this are platform specific and need > >>>> new compatible. > >>>> > >>>>> That said, it also seems reasonable to me to use a compatible string, > >>>>> to allow us to describe the update of HW for various affected devices. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> While I agree with the above statement, it depends on what you refer as > >>>> update of HW above. It is all Qcom specific and there is so much turn > >>>> between SoCs that this shouldn't matter but I would like to take example > >>>> and describe what I initially mentioned/argued against. > >>>> > >>>> Lets us assume 2 SoCs: A and B. A is old and didn't use SCMI while B is > >>>> new and migrated to use SCMI. Now let us assume both A and B SoCs have > >>>> exact same version/revision of an IP: X. Now just because B uses SCMI, > >>>> should X have one compatible to be used in A and another in B. That > >>>> doesn't sound right IMO. > >>> > >>> That's trivial to answer, because these are different SoCs. Compatibles > >>> are SoC specific and every SoC-IP-block needs its compatible. Rob was > >>> repeating this many times that versioned compatibles are discouraged. > >> > >> OK I may have confused or derailed the discussion with the mention of > >> "exact same version/revision" of X. This is not related versioned compatibles. > >> Let me try to explain it with some real example. If you look at all the > >> users of "arm,coresight-tpiu", they all have same compatible on all the > >> platforms irrespective of the clock/reset/voltage/power domain providers > >> on these platforms. > >> > >> E.g. on juno it is based on SCMI while on qcom-msm8974/apq8064 or > >> hi3660/hi6220 it is platform specific clock/power domain providers. > >> However all these platform have the same compatible "arm,coresight-tpiu". > >> That was the point I was trying to make and not related to versioned > >> compatible for different versions on an IP. > > > > That's perfectly fine, if that is sufficient. It would also be > > perfectly fine to extend it with a platform/soc specific compatible, > > when needed. > > > > An example could be: > > compatible = "qcom,sm8450-coresight-tpiu", "arm,coresight-tpiu"; > > The issue is not the same as the above example. > > We already have a soc specific compatible in this case > ex: "qcom,sc8280xp-ufshc" > > making another compatible like "qcom,sc8280xp-ufshc-scmi" or > "qcom,sc8280xp-ufshc-xyz" based on how some of the resources (clks, > regulators) are provided in bindings does not really make sense. > > Fact is that we are representing the same IP block. > > AFAIU, we should go with same compatible irrespective of how the > resourcing needs are satisfied. I get your point. Nevertheless, we need to create a new platform (new DTS file), as we are changing the FW interface to SCMI. That means the toplevel compatible for the platform will be a new one (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml). I am not sure if it's correct/allowed to use that new platform-part as an extension for the compatible for the IP blocks too? I thought it was okay, but if not, drivers could match on the platform's compatible too (not sure we want that though). Kind regards Uffe