From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
To: Varshini.Rajendran@microchip.com, broonie@kernel.org,
robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
conor+dt@kernel.org, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com,
alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev,
linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/39] spi: dt-bindings: atmel,at91rm9200-spi: remove 9x60 compatible from list
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:38:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <557f369c-e6f9-4794-8d80-bda5c149db5e@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98fedd3f-b55d-4ad1-b2ca-1efef0a19505@microchip.com>
On 2/28/24 09:28, Varshini.Rajendran@microchip.com wrote:
> Hi Tudor,
>
> On 26/02/24 2:39 pm, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 23.02.2024 19:26, Varshini Rajendran wrote:
>>> Remove microchip,sam9x60-spi compatible from the list as the driver used
>>> has the compatible atmel,at91rm9200-spi and sam9x60 devices also use the
>>> same compatible as fallback. So removing the microchip,sam9x60-spi
>>> compatible from the list since it is not needed.
>>>
>>
>> I find this wrong. I though we shall add compatibles for each SoC. Are
>> the registers and fields the same for the SPI IPs in these 2 SoCs? Even
>> if they are the same, are you sure the IPs are integrated in the same way?
>
> Which two SoCs are you referring to ?
> I am not removing the device specific compatible. I am only removing the
> additional fallback compatible.
>
ah, I read it wrong, sorry
> As in,
>
> compatible = "microchip,sam9x7-spi", "atmel,at91rm9200-spi";
>
> instead of,
>
> compatible = "microchip,sam9x7-spi", "microchip,sam9x60-spi",
> "atmel,at91rm9200-spi";
>
> for the sam9x7 devices.
>
> Hope this is clear. If I have it wrong please let me know.
it's clear now, thanks.
I see in the driver that microchip,sam9x60-spi compatible is not yet
used, thus removing the fallback to "microchip,sam9x60-spi" brings no
functional change. Would have made a difference if sam9x60-spi
implemented additional support that sam9x7-spi could have used as a
fallback. If you think that sam9x7-spi will not fallback to sam9x60-spi
in the future then:
Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Varshini Rajendran <varshini.rajendran@microchip.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v4:
>>> - Elaborated the explanation in the commit message to justify the patch
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml | 1 -
>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml
>>> index 58367587bfbc..32e7c14033c2 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,at91rm9200-spi.yaml
>>> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ properties:
>>> - const: atmel,at91rm9200-spi
>>> - items:
>>> - const: microchip,sam9x7-spi
>>> - - const: microchip,sam9x60-spi
>>> - const: atmel,at91rm9200-spi
>>>
>>> reg:
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-28 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-23 17:13 [PATCH v4 00/39] Add support for sam9x7 SoC family Varshini Rajendran
2024-02-23 17:25 ` [PATCH v4 12/39] dt-bindings: serial: atmel,at91-usart: add compatible for sam9x7 Varshini Rajendran
2024-02-24 20:02 ` Conor Dooley
2024-02-28 7:03 ` Varshini.Rajendran
2024-02-28 11:49 ` Conor Dooley
2024-02-29 8:55 ` Varshini.Rajendran
2024-02-29 18:26 ` Conor Dooley
2024-02-23 17:26 ` [PATCH v4 16/39] spi: dt-bindings: atmel,at91rm9200-spi: remove 9x60 compatible from list Varshini Rajendran
2024-02-26 9:09 ` Tudor Ambarus
2024-02-28 9:28 ` Varshini.Rajendran
2024-02-28 9:38 ` Tudor Ambarus [this message]
2024-02-24 1:18 ` (subset) [PATCH v4 00/39] Add support for sam9x7 SoC family Mark Brown
2024-02-27 1:21 ` Andi Shyti
2024-02-27 3:20 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2024-02-28 15:53 ` (subset) " Mark Brown
2024-03-01 10:51 ` Herbert Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=557f369c-e6f9-4794-8d80-bda5c149db5e@linaro.org \
--to=tudor.ambarus@linaro.org \
--cc=Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com \
--cc=Varshini.Rajendran@microchip.com \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox