Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce IEP driver and packet timestamping support

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2989 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 06:06:11PM +0530, Md Danish Anwar wrote:
> On 08/08/23 5:52 pm, Roger Quadros wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 08/08/2023 15:18, Md Danish Anwar wrote:
> >> On 08/08/23 5:38 pm, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:30:43PM +0530, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
> >>>> This series introduces Industrial Ethernet Peripheral (IEP) driver to
> >>>> support timestamping of ethernet packets and thus support PTP and PPS
> >>>> for PRU ICSSG ethernet ports.
> >>>>
> >>>> This series also adds 10M full duplex support for ICSSG ethernet driver.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are two IEP instances. IEP0 is used for packet timestamping while IEP1
> >>>> is used for 10M full duplex support.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is v2 of the series [v1]. It addresses comments made on [v1].
> >>>> This series is based on linux-next(#next-20230807). 
> >>>>
> >>>> Changes from v1 to v2:
> >>>> *) Addressed Simon's comment to fix reverse xmas tree declaration. Some APIs
> >>>>    in patch 3 and 4 were not following reverse xmas tree variable declaration.
> >>>>    Fixed it in this version.
> >>>> *) Addressed Conor's comments and removed unsupported SoCs from compatible
> >>>>    comment in patch 1. 
> >>>
> >>> I'm sorry I missed responding there before you sent v2, it was a bank
> >>> holiday yesterday. I'm curious why you removed them, rather than just
> >>> added them with a fallback to the ti,am654-icss-iep compatible, given
> >>> your comment that "the same compatible currently works for all these
> >>> 3 SoCs".
> >>
> >> I removed them as currently the driver is being upstreamed only for AM654x,
> >> once I start up-streaming the ICSSG driver for AM64 and any other SoC. I will
> >> add them here. If at that time we are still using same compatible, then I will
> >> modify the comment otherwise add new compatible.
> >>
> >> As of now, I don't see the need of adding other SoCs in iep binding as IEP
> >> driver up-streaming is only planned for AM654x as of now.
> > 
> > But, is there any difference in IEP hardware/driver for the other SoCs?
> > AFAIK the same IP is used on all SoCs.
> > 
> > If there is no hardware/code change then we don't need to introduce a new compatible.
> > The comment for all SoCs can already be there right from the start.
> > 
> 
> There is no code change. The same compatible is used for other SoCs. Even if
> the code is same I was thinking to keep the compatible as below now
> 
> - ti,am654-icss-iep   # for K3 AM65x SoCs
> 
> and once other SoCs are introduced, I will just modify the comment,
> 
> - ti,am654-icss-iep   # for K3 AM65x, AM64x SoCs
> 
> But we can also keep the all SoCs in comment right from start as well. I am
> fine with both.

> Conor / Roger, Please let me know which approach should I go with in next revision?

IMO, "ti,am564-icss-iep" goes in the driver and the other SoCs get
specific compatibles in the binding with "ti,am564-icss-iep" as a
fallback.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]