Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] mailbox: qcom-apcs: Add SM6125 compatible

[Jassi Brar]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 2:46 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 10:03 PM Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 4:46 AM Martin Botka
> > <martin.botka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This commit adds compatible for the SM6125 SoC
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Botka <martin.botka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in V2:
> > > None
> > > Changes in V3:
> > > Change compatible to apcs-hmss-global
> > >  drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c | 5 +++++
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c
> > > index f25324d03842..f24c5ad8d658 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,10 @@ static const struct qcom_apcs_ipc_data sdm660_apcs_data = {
> > >         .offset = 8, .clk_name = NULL
> > >  };
> > >
> > > +static const struct qcom_apcs_ipc_data sm6125_apcs_data = {
> > > +       .offset = 8, .clk_name = NULL
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  static const struct qcom_apcs_ipc_data apps_shared_apcs_data = {
> > >         .offset = 12, .clk_name = NULL
> > >  };
> > > @@ -166,6 +170,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_apcs_ipc_of_match[] = {
> > >         { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-apss-shared", .data = &apps_shared_apcs_data },
> > >         { .compatible = "qcom,sdm660-apcs-hmss-global", .data = &sdm660_apcs_data },
> > >         { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-apss-shared", .data = &apps_shared_apcs_data },
> > > +       { .compatible = "qcom,sm6125-apcs-hmss-global", .data = &sm6125_apcs_data },
> > >         { .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-apss-shared", .data = &apps_shared_apcs_data },
> > >         { .compatible = "qcom,sdx55-apcs-gcc", .data = &sdx55_apcs_data },
> > >         {}
> > >
> > These all are basically different names for the same controller.
> > The 'offset' is a configuration parameter and the 'clock', when NULL,
> > is basically some "always-on" clock.
> > I am sure we wouldn't be doing it, if the controller was third-party.
>
> If newer implementations are 'the same', then they should have a
> fallback compatible to the existing one that is the same and no driver
> change is needed. If the differences are board or instance (within an
> SoC) specific, then a DT property would be appropriate.
>
The controllers (13 now) only differ by the 'offset' where the
registers are mapped. Clock-name is a pure s/w artifact.
So, maybe we could push all these in DT.

thanks.