Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,usb-snps-femto-v2: Add bindings for QCS9100

[Trilok Soni]

On 7/10/2024 9:27 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 08:46:19PM +0800, Tengfei Fan wrote:
>> Document the compatible string for USB phy found in Qualcomm QCS9100
>> SoC.
>> QCS9100 is drived from SA8775p. Currently, both the QCS9100 and SA8775p
>> platform use non-SCMI resource. In the future, the SA8775p platform will
>> move to use SCMI resources and it will have new sa8775p-related device
>> tree. Consequently, introduce "qcom,qcs9100-usb-hs-phy" to describe
>> non-SCMI based USB phy.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Introduce support for the QCS9100 SoC device tree (DTSI) and the
>> QCS9100 RIDE board DTS. The QCS9100 is a variant of the SA8775p.
>> While the QCS9100 platform is still in the early design stage, the
>> QCS9100 RIDE board is identical to the SA8775p RIDE board, except it
>> mounts the QCS9100 SoC instead of the SA8775p SoC.
>>
>> The QCS9100 SoC DTSI is directly renamed from the SA8775p SoC DTSI, and
>> all the compatible strings will be updated from "SA8775p" to "QCS9100".
>> The QCS9100 device tree patches will be pushed after all the device tree
>> bindings and device driver patches are reviewed.
> 
> I'm not convinced this is not just pointless churn. Aren't we going to 
> end up with 2 compatible strings for everything? SCMI should just change 
> the providers, but otherwise the consumers are the same. I suppose if 
> clocks are abstracted into power-domains (an abuse IMO) then the 
> bindings change.
> 
> Why do we need to support both SCMI and not-SCMI for the same chip?

IOT SKU of this SOC is using the non-SCMI solution and Auto SKU
of this SOC is using the SCMI based solution due to additional
safety requirements. 


-- 
---Trilok Soni