On 10/01/2023 23:18, Florian Fainelli wrote: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:
On 1/10/23 00:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
No, it is discouraged in such forms. Family or IP block compatiblesI saw a few other vendors like these qcom ones:
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?
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
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature