From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66704C433DF for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 06:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095F42225A for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 06:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726714AbgJSG0o (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 02:26:44 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:17427 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726626AbgJSG0o (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 02:26:44 -0400 IronPort-SDR: EA6Z/X4lc3AOdEYcXaIokqXdc1aB+ekOovIYxup6k6LVFqrpWlsBT4S0RTE4cy/Em+6BwL11uC /uCGRQRjJUfw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9778"; a="164361114" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,393,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="164361114" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Oct 2020 23:26:42 -0700 IronPort-SDR: DCdbjYGby5pOWTc5RmZWNjgvDZrbBdh1x6ZSFuS4F6rza9aPjzUsw0E1jvS/q/AjQrCqQbIBaW 1OYSN3tLUTgw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,393,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="301282872" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2020 23:26:40 -0700 Received: from [10.226.38.24] (vramuthx-MOBL1.gar.corp.intel.com [10.226.38.24]) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7335808A3; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 23:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/6] spi: cadence-quadspi: Add QSPI support for Intel LGM SoC To: Mark Brown Cc: vigneshr@ti.com, tudor.ambarus@microchip.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com, dinguyen@kernel.org, richard@nod.at, cheol.yong.kim@intel.com, qi-ming.wu@intel.com References: <20201016093138.28871-1-vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> <20201016093138.28871-5-vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> <20201016163318.GI5274@sirena.org.uk> From: "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" Message-ID: <2c5d1e04-3b4c-311e-38fb-357e2fcd44a8@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:26:36 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201016163318.GI5274@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-spi@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark, On 17/10/2020 12:33 am, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 05:31:36PM +0800, Ramuthevar,Vadivel MuruganX wrote: > >> + depends on OF && (ARM || ARM64 || X86 || COMPILE_TEST) > >> + { >> + .compatible = "intel,lgm-qspi", >> + }, > > This is an x86 SoC (or SoC series) - is it really going to use DT for > the firmware interfaces? Thank you for the review comments... Intel LGM SoC does uses DT based firmware blob. It's not specifically a problem, just > surprising to see something other than ACPI. Or is the intention to use > PRP0001? Yes, You're right most of them uses ACPI based, but LGM SoC doesn't. Regards Vadivel There's a new comaptible here which wasn't really the use case > for PRP0001. Like I say not really a problem, just curious. >