lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 RESEND 1/5] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: Add Exynos USI bindings
On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 at 13:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2021 21:40, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:36 PM Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 21:31, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 01:13:21PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> >>>> Add constants for choosing USIv2 configuration mode in device tree.
> >>>> Those are further used in USI driver to figure out which value to write
> >>>> into SW_CONF register. Also document USIv2 IP-core bindings.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Changes in v2:
> >>>> - Combined dt-bindings doc and dt-bindings header patches
> >>>> - Added i2c node to example in bindings doc
> >>>> - Added mentioning of shared internal circuits
> >>>> - Added USI_V2_NONE value to bindings header
> >>>>
> >>>> .../bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml | 135 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h | 17 +++
> >>>> 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+)
> >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml
> >>>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/soc/samsung,exynos-usi.h
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml
> >>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>> index 000000000000..a822bc62b3cd
> >>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml
> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
> >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> >>>> +%YAML 1.2
> >>>> +---
> >>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml#
> >>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> >>>> +
> >>>> +title: Samsung's Exynos USI (Universal Serial Interface) binding
> >>>> +
> >>>> +maintainers:
> >>>> + - Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
> >>>> + - Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +description: |
> >>>> + USI IP-core provides selectable serial protocol (UART, SPI or High-Speed I2C).
> >>>> + USI shares almost all internal circuits within each protocol, so only one
> >>>> + protocol can be chosen at a time. USI is modeled as a node with zero or more
> >>>> + child nodes, each representing a serial sub-node device. The mode setting
> >>>> + selects which particular function will be used.
> >>>> +
> >>>> + Refer to next bindings documentation for information on protocol subnodes that
> >>>> + can exist under USI node:
> >>>> +
> >>>> + [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/samsung_uart.yaml
> >>>> + [2] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-exynos5.txt
> >>>> + [3] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-samsung.txt
> >>>> +
> >>>> +properties:
> >>>> + $nodename:
> >>>> + pattern: "^usi@[0-9a-f]+$"
> >>>> +
> >>>> + compatible:
> >>>> + const: samsung,exynos-usi-v2
> >>>
> >>> Use SoC based compatibles.
> >>>
> >>
> >> In this particular case, I'd really prefer to have it like this. Most
> >> likely we'll only have USIv1 and USIv1 in the end, and I think that
> >> would be more clear to have USI version in compatible, rather than SoC
> >> name. Please let me know if you have a strong opinion on this one --
> >> if so I'll re-send.
> >
> > Fine if you have some evidence the ratio of versions to SoC are much
> > more than 1:1 and the versions correspond to something (IOW, you
> > aren't making them up).
> >
> > We went down the version # path with QCom and in the end about every
> > SoC had a different version.
>
> I am against v1/v2 versions. The documentation in Samsung was always
> poor in that matter. There were mistakes or confusions so it wasn't
> always obvious which IP-block version comes with which SoC. Not
> mentioning that several contributors do not have access to Samsung
> datasheets and they submit code based on GPL compliance packages, so
> they won't know which version they have for given SoC.
>
> OTOH there is no single benefit of using USI v1/v2, except "liking".
>

Ok, I'll do as you ask. In general I agree, but I still think in this
particular case using "usi" in compatible is feasible. Anyway, I have
no strong opinion on this one, and it's easy to rework.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-04 15:28    [W:0.054 / U:12.836 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site