diff mbox series

[1/4] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: document qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id

Message ID 20220529202629.47588-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org
State New
Headers show
Series dt-bindings: arm: qcom: qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id | expand

Commit Message

Krzysztof Kozlowski May 29, 2022, 8:26 p.m. UTC
The top level qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id properties are utilized by
bootloaders on Qualcomm MSM platforms to determine which device tree
should be used and passed to the kernel.

The commit b32e592d3c28 ("devicetree: bindings: Document qcom board
compatible format") from 2015 was a consensus during discussion about
upstreaming qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id fields.  There are however still
problems with that consensus:
1. It was reached 7 years ago but it turned out its implementation did
   not reach all possible products.

2. Initially additional tool (dtbTool) was needed for parsing these
   fields to create a QCDT image consisting of multiple DTBs, later the
   bootloaders were improved and they use these qcom,msm-id and
   qcom,board-id properties directly.

3. Extracting relevant information from the board compatible requires
   this additional tool (dtbTool), which makes the build process more
   complicated and not easily reproducible (DTBs are modified after the
   kernel build).

4. Some versions of Qualcomm bootloaders expect these properties even
   when booting with a single DTB.  The community is stuck with these
   bootloaders thus they require properties in the DTBs.

Since several upstreamed Qualcomm SoC-based boards require these
properties to properly boot and the properties are reportedly used by
bootloaders, document them.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/a3c932d1-a102-ce18-deea-18cbbd05ecab@linaro.org/
Co-developed-by: Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml         | 58 +++++++++++++++++++
 include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h            | 30 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h

Comments

Rob Herring (Arm) June 5, 2022, 3:07 p.m. UTC | #1
On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 10:26:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> The top level qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id properties are utilized by
> bootloaders on Qualcomm MSM platforms to determine which device tree
> should be used and passed to the kernel.
> 
> The commit b32e592d3c28 ("devicetree: bindings: Document qcom board
> compatible format") from 2015 was a consensus during discussion about
> upstreaming qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id fields.  There are however still
> problems with that consensus:
> 1. It was reached 7 years ago but it turned out its implementation did
>    not reach all possible products.
> 
> 2. Initially additional tool (dtbTool) was needed for parsing these
>    fields to create a QCDT image consisting of multiple DTBs, later the
>    bootloaders were improved and they use these qcom,msm-id and
>    qcom,board-id properties directly.
> 
> 3. Extracting relevant information from the board compatible requires
>    this additional tool (dtbTool), which makes the build process more
>    complicated and not easily reproducible (DTBs are modified after the
>    kernel build).
> 
> 4. Some versions of Qualcomm bootloaders expect these properties even
>    when booting with a single DTB.  The community is stuck with these
>    bootloaders thus they require properties in the DTBs.
> 
> Since several upstreamed Qualcomm SoC-based boards require these
> properties to properly boot and the properties are reportedly used by
> bootloaders, document them.

My primary issue here is accepting this will be an endorsement for 
other vendors doing something similar. I'm not against an ID 
property(ies) in the root node, but would rather see something common 
if we do anything.

Rob
Krzysztof Kozlowski June 7, 2022, 11:15 a.m. UTC | #2
On 05/06/2022 17:07, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 10:26:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> The top level qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id properties are utilized by
>> bootloaders on Qualcomm MSM platforms to determine which device tree
>> should be used and passed to the kernel.
>>
>> The commit b32e592d3c28 ("devicetree: bindings: Document qcom board
>> compatible format") from 2015 was a consensus during discussion about
>> upstreaming qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id fields.  There are however still
>> problems with that consensus:
>> 1. It was reached 7 years ago but it turned out its implementation did
>>    not reach all possible products.
>>
>> 2. Initially additional tool (dtbTool) was needed for parsing these
>>    fields to create a QCDT image consisting of multiple DTBs, later the
>>    bootloaders were improved and they use these qcom,msm-id and
>>    qcom,board-id properties directly.
>>
>> 3. Extracting relevant information from the board compatible requires
>>    this additional tool (dtbTool), which makes the build process more
>>    complicated and not easily reproducible (DTBs are modified after the
>>    kernel build).
>>
>> 4. Some versions of Qualcomm bootloaders expect these properties even
>>    when booting with a single DTB.  The community is stuck with these
>>    bootloaders thus they require properties in the DTBs.
>>
>> Since several upstreamed Qualcomm SoC-based boards require these
>> properties to properly boot and the properties are reportedly used by
>> bootloaders, document them.
> 
> My primary issue here is accepting this will be an endorsement for 
> other vendors doing something similar. I'm not against an ID 
> property(ies) in the root node, but would rather see something common 
> if we do anything.

Hi Rob,

A more common approach was merged back in 2015 - encoding this ID
information in the board compatibles. If I understood previous
discussion correctly, this common method was later used by Qualcomm DTB
post-processing tool. At least for some of the cases.

Other cases (several Qualcomm boards from different vendors) still use
these ID properties. It even turns out they use it differently between
vendors (e.g. Xiaomi vs OnePlus).

Important arguments for documenting these properties:
1. These ID properties are already on released boards where changing
bootloader is non-trivial or even not possible. It will not be possible
to remove these properties, without seriously affecting the community
working with them.

2. According to Konrad [1] (second paragraph), newer chipsets (starting
with sm8350 released in 2021) do not use these properties. These newer
DTS do not have them.

Considering 1+2 above, maybe let's document these properties as
compatible? Would that solve your point of "endorsement for other vendors"?

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220522195138.35943-1-konrad.dybcio@somainline.org/


Best regards,
Krzysztof
Rob Herring (Arm) June 10, 2022, 4:33 p.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:15:51PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/06/2022 17:07, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 10:26:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> The top level qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id properties are utilized by
> >> bootloaders on Qualcomm MSM platforms to determine which device tree
> >> should be used and passed to the kernel.
> >>
> >> The commit b32e592d3c28 ("devicetree: bindings: Document qcom board
> >> compatible format") from 2015 was a consensus during discussion about
> >> upstreaming qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id fields.  There are however still
> >> problems with that consensus:
> >> 1. It was reached 7 years ago but it turned out its implementation did
> >>    not reach all possible products.
> >>
> >> 2. Initially additional tool (dtbTool) was needed for parsing these
> >>    fields to create a QCDT image consisting of multiple DTBs, later the
> >>    bootloaders were improved and they use these qcom,msm-id and
> >>    qcom,board-id properties directly.
> >>
> >> 3. Extracting relevant information from the board compatible requires
> >>    this additional tool (dtbTool), which makes the build process more
> >>    complicated and not easily reproducible (DTBs are modified after the
> >>    kernel build).
> >>
> >> 4. Some versions of Qualcomm bootloaders expect these properties even
> >>    when booting with a single DTB.  The community is stuck with these
> >>    bootloaders thus they require properties in the DTBs.
> >>
> >> Since several upstreamed Qualcomm SoC-based boards require these
> >> properties to properly boot and the properties are reportedly used by
> >> bootloaders, document them.
> > 
> > My primary issue here is accepting this will be an endorsement for 
> > other vendors doing something similar. I'm not against an ID 
> > property(ies) in the root node, but would rather see something common 
> > if we do anything.
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> A more common approach was merged back in 2015 - encoding this ID
> information in the board compatibles. If I understood previous
> discussion correctly, this common method was later used by Qualcomm DTB
> post-processing tool. At least for some of the cases.
> 
> Other cases (several Qualcomm boards from different vendors) still use
> these ID properties. It even turns out they use it differently between
> vendors (e.g. Xiaomi vs OnePlus).
> 
> Important arguments for documenting these properties:
> 1. These ID properties are already on released boards where changing
> bootloader is non-trivial or even not possible. It will not be possible
> to remove these properties, without seriously affecting the community
> working with them.

Accepting things because they are already in use is also not a path we 
want to go down. If it's the color of the bike shed, then fine.

> 2. According to Konrad [1] (second paragraph), newer chipsets (starting
> with sm8350 released in 2021) do not use these properties. These newer
> DTS do not have them.
> 
> Considering 1+2 above, maybe let's document these properties as
> compatible? Would that solve your point of "endorsement for other vendors"?

What do you mean? Only allow them for certain root compatible strings? I 
suppose that would be okay by me. It would also be useful documentation 
of where they are needed.

Rob
Krzysztof Kozlowski June 11, 2022, 1:07 p.m. UTC | #4
On 10/06/2022 18:33, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:15:51PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 05/06/2022 17:07, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 10:26:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> The top level qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id properties are utilized by
>>>> bootloaders on Qualcomm MSM platforms to determine which device tree
>>>> should be used and passed to the kernel.
>>>>
>>>> The commit b32e592d3c28 ("devicetree: bindings: Document qcom board
>>>> compatible format") from 2015 was a consensus during discussion about
>>>> upstreaming qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id fields.  There are however still
>>>> problems with that consensus:
>>>> 1. It was reached 7 years ago but it turned out its implementation did
>>>>    not reach all possible products.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Initially additional tool (dtbTool) was needed for parsing these
>>>>    fields to create a QCDT image consisting of multiple DTBs, later the
>>>>    bootloaders were improved and they use these qcom,msm-id and
>>>>    qcom,board-id properties directly.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Extracting relevant information from the board compatible requires
>>>>    this additional tool (dtbTool), which makes the build process more
>>>>    complicated and not easily reproducible (DTBs are modified after the
>>>>    kernel build).
>>>>
>>>> 4. Some versions of Qualcomm bootloaders expect these properties even
>>>>    when booting with a single DTB.  The community is stuck with these
>>>>    bootloaders thus they require properties in the DTBs.
>>>>
>>>> Since several upstreamed Qualcomm SoC-based boards require these
>>>> properties to properly boot and the properties are reportedly used by
>>>> bootloaders, document them.
>>>
>>> My primary issue here is accepting this will be an endorsement for 
>>> other vendors doing something similar. I'm not against an ID 
>>> property(ies) in the root node, but would rather see something common 
>>> if we do anything.
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> A more common approach was merged back in 2015 - encoding this ID
>> information in the board compatibles. If I understood previous
>> discussion correctly, this common method was later used by Qualcomm DTB
>> post-processing tool. At least for some of the cases.
>>
>> Other cases (several Qualcomm boards from different vendors) still use
>> these ID properties. It even turns out they use it differently between
>> vendors (e.g. Xiaomi vs OnePlus).
>>
>> Important arguments for documenting these properties:
>> 1. These ID properties are already on released boards where changing
>> bootloader is non-trivial or even not possible. It will not be possible
>> to remove these properties, without seriously affecting the community
>> working with them.
> 
> Accepting things because they are already in use is also not a path we 
> want to go down. If it's the color of the bike shed, then fine.
> 
>> 2. According to Konrad [1] (second paragraph), newer chipsets (starting
>> with sm8350 released in 2021) do not use these properties. These newer
>> DTS do not have them.
>>
>> Considering 1+2 above, maybe let's document these properties as
>> compatible? Would that solve your point of "endorsement for other vendors"?
> 
> What do you mean? Only allow them for certain root compatible strings? I 
> suppose that would be okay by me. It would also be useful documentation 
> of where they are needed.

Bah, I wrote something else than I had in mind. So one more try:

Considering 1+2 above, maybe let's document these properties as
*deprecated*? Would that solve your point of "endorsement for other
vendors"?

However the idea to restrict them per-compatible, is also nice. Although
I cannot guarantee the list will not grow for older SoCs.


Best regards,
Krzysztof
Rob Herring (Arm) June 13, 2022, 3:30 p.m. UTC | #5
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 7:07 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/06/2022 18:33, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:15:51PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 05/06/2022 17:07, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 10:26:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> The top level qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id properties are utilized by
> >>>> bootloaders on Qualcomm MSM platforms to determine which device tree
> >>>> should be used and passed to the kernel.
> >>>>
> >>>> The commit b32e592d3c28 ("devicetree: bindings: Document qcom board
> >>>> compatible format") from 2015 was a consensus during discussion about
> >>>> upstreaming qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id fields.  There are however still
> >>>> problems with that consensus:
> >>>> 1. It was reached 7 years ago but it turned out its implementation did
> >>>>    not reach all possible products.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Initially additional tool (dtbTool) was needed for parsing these
> >>>>    fields to create a QCDT image consisting of multiple DTBs, later the
> >>>>    bootloaders were improved and they use these qcom,msm-id and
> >>>>    qcom,board-id properties directly.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. Extracting relevant information from the board compatible requires
> >>>>    this additional tool (dtbTool), which makes the build process more
> >>>>    complicated and not easily reproducible (DTBs are modified after the
> >>>>    kernel build).
> >>>>
> >>>> 4. Some versions of Qualcomm bootloaders expect these properties even
> >>>>    when booting with a single DTB.  The community is stuck with these
> >>>>    bootloaders thus they require properties in the DTBs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since several upstreamed Qualcomm SoC-based boards require these
> >>>> properties to properly boot and the properties are reportedly used by
> >>>> bootloaders, document them.
> >>>
> >>> My primary issue here is accepting this will be an endorsement for
> >>> other vendors doing something similar. I'm not against an ID
> >>> property(ies) in the root node, but would rather see something common
> >>> if we do anything.
> >>
> >> Hi Rob,
> >>
> >> A more common approach was merged back in 2015 - encoding this ID
> >> information in the board compatibles. If I understood previous
> >> discussion correctly, this common method was later used by Qualcomm DTB
> >> post-processing tool. At least for some of the cases.
> >>
> >> Other cases (several Qualcomm boards from different vendors) still use
> >> these ID properties. It even turns out they use it differently between
> >> vendors (e.g. Xiaomi vs OnePlus).
> >>
> >> Important arguments for documenting these properties:
> >> 1. These ID properties are already on released boards where changing
> >> bootloader is non-trivial or even not possible. It will not be possible
> >> to remove these properties, without seriously affecting the community
> >> working with them.
> >
> > Accepting things because they are already in use is also not a path we
> > want to go down. If it's the color of the bike shed, then fine.
> >
> >> 2. According to Konrad [1] (second paragraph), newer chipsets (starting
> >> with sm8350 released in 2021) do not use these properties. These newer
> >> DTS do not have them.
> >>
> >> Considering 1+2 above, maybe let's document these properties as
> >> compatible? Would that solve your point of "endorsement for other vendors"?
> >
> > What do you mean? Only allow them for certain root compatible strings? I
> > suppose that would be okay by me. It would also be useful documentation
> > of where they are needed.
>
> Bah, I wrote something else than I had in mind. So one more try:
>
> Considering 1+2 above, maybe let's document these properties as
> *deprecated*? Would that solve your point of "endorsement for other
> vendors"?

Yes.

> However the idea to restrict them per-compatible, is also nice. Although
> I cannot guarantee the list will not grow for older SoCs.

No issue with that.

Rob
Dmitry Baryshkov June 22, 2022, 8:29 a.m. UTC | #6
On 13/06/2022 18:30, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 7:07 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/06/2022 18:33, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:15:51PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2022 17:07, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 10:26:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> The top level qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id properties are utilized by
>>>>>> bootloaders on Qualcomm MSM platforms to determine which device tree
>>>>>> should be used and passed to the kernel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The commit b32e592d3c28 ("devicetree: bindings: Document qcom board
>>>>>> compatible format") from 2015 was a consensus during discussion about
>>>>>> upstreaming qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id fields.  There are however still
>>>>>> problems with that consensus:
>>>>>> 1. It was reached 7 years ago but it turned out its implementation did
>>>>>>     not reach all possible products.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Initially additional tool (dtbTool) was needed for parsing these
>>>>>>     fields to create a QCDT image consisting of multiple DTBs, later the
>>>>>>     bootloaders were improved and they use these qcom,msm-id and
>>>>>>     qcom,board-id properties directly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Extracting relevant information from the board compatible requires
>>>>>>     this additional tool (dtbTool), which makes the build process more
>>>>>>     complicated and not easily reproducible (DTBs are modified after the
>>>>>>     kernel build).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. Some versions of Qualcomm bootloaders expect these properties even
>>>>>>     when booting with a single DTB.  The community is stuck with these
>>>>>>     bootloaders thus they require properties in the DTBs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since several upstreamed Qualcomm SoC-based boards require these
>>>>>> properties to properly boot and the properties are reportedly used by
>>>>>> bootloaders, document them.
>>>>>
>>>>> My primary issue here is accepting this will be an endorsement for
>>>>> other vendors doing something similar. I'm not against an ID
>>>>> property(ies) in the root node, but would rather see something common
>>>>> if we do anything.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>>>> A more common approach was merged back in 2015 - encoding this ID
>>>> information in the board compatibles. If I understood previous
>>>> discussion correctly, this common method was later used by Qualcomm DTB
>>>> post-processing tool. At least for some of the cases.
>>>>
>>>> Other cases (several Qualcomm boards from different vendors) still use
>>>> these ID properties. It even turns out they use it differently between
>>>> vendors (e.g. Xiaomi vs OnePlus).
>>>>
>>>> Important arguments for documenting these properties:
>>>> 1. These ID properties are already on released boards where changing
>>>> bootloader is non-trivial or even not possible. It will not be possible
>>>> to remove these properties, without seriously affecting the community
>>>> working with them.
>>>
>>> Accepting things because they are already in use is also not a path we
>>> want to go down. If it's the color of the bike shed, then fine.
>>>
>>>> 2. According to Konrad [1] (second paragraph), newer chipsets (starting
>>>> with sm8350 released in 2021) do not use these properties. These newer
>>>> DTS do not have them.
>>>>
>>>> Considering 1+2 above, maybe let's document these properties as
>>>> compatible? Would that solve your point of "endorsement for other vendors"?
>>>
>>> What do you mean? Only allow them for certain root compatible strings? I
>>> suppose that would be okay by me. It would also be useful documentation
>>> of where they are needed.
>>
>> Bah, I wrote something else than I had in mind. So one more try:
>>
>> Considering 1+2 above, maybe let's document these properties as
>> *deprecated*? Would that solve your point of "endorsement for other
>> vendors"?
> 
> Yes.

It seems point 2 is not 100% correct. Qualcomm has been using these 
properties in the sm8350 and sm8450 dts files.

However to I'd suggest to continue with the agreement to mark these 
properties as deprecated (and compat-bound to Qualcomm devices/root 
compatible strings). Which means that adding them to the new DT file 
would require some justification. For example 'the board fails to boot 
without these properties' or 'we are demanded to provide a single boot 
image and using these properties allows bootloader to select the correct 
DTs.

> 
>> However the idea to restrict them per-compatible, is also nice. Although
>> I cannot guarantee the list will not grow for older SoCs.
> 
> No issue with that.
> 
> Rob
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
index 6c38c1387afd..b7fa85c1e478 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
@@ -403,6 +403,64 @@  properties:
               - qcom,sm8450-qrd
           - const: qcom,sm8450
 
+  # Board compatibles go above
+
+  qcom,msm-id:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-matrix
+    minItems: 1
+    maxItems: 8
+    items:
+      items:
+        - description: |
+            MSM chipset ID - an exact match value consisting of three bitfields::
+             - bits 0-15  - The unique MSM chipset ID
+             - bits 16-31 - Reserved; should be 0
+        - description: |
+            Hardware revision ID - a chipset specific 32-bit ID representing
+            the version of the chipset.  It is best a match value - the
+            bootloader will look for the closest possible match.
+    description:
+      The MSM chipset and hardware revision use by Qualcomm bootloaders.  It
+      can optionally be an array of these to indicate multiple hardware that
+      use the same device tree.  It is expected that the bootloader will use
+      this information at boot-up to decide which device tree to use when given
+      multiple device trees, some of which may not be compatible with the
+      actual hardware.  It is the bootloader's responsibility to pass the
+      correct device tree to the kernel.
+      This is a legacy property - it is not expected on newer boards (starting
+      with SM8350).
+
+  qcom,board-id:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-matrix
+    minItems: 1
+    maxItems: 8
+    items:
+      items:
+        - description: |
+            Board ID consisting of three bitfields::
+              - bits 31-24 - Unusued
+              - bits 23-16 - Platform Version Major
+              - bits 15-8  - Platform Version Minor
+              - bits 7-0   - Platform Type
+            Platform Type field is an exact match value.  The
+            Platform Major/Minor field is a best match.  The bootloader will
+            look for the closest possible match.
+        - description: |
+            Subtype ID unique to a Platform Type/Chipset ID.  For a given
+            Platform Type, there will typically only be a single board and the
+            subtype_id will be 0.  However in some cases board variants may
+            need to be distinguished by different subtype_id values.
+    description:
+      The board type and revision information.  It can optionally be an array
+      of these to indicate multiple boards that use the same device tree.  It
+      is expected that the bootloader will use this information at boot-up to
+      decide which device tree to use when given multiple device trees, some of
+      which may not be compatible with the actual hardware.  It is the
+      bootloader's responsibility to pass the correct device tree to the
+      kernel
+      This is a legacy property - it is not expected on newer boards (starting
+      with SM8350).
+
 additionalProperties: true
 
 ...
diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..eaf86c18650f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ 
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2015, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (c) 2022 Linaro Ltd
+ * Author: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> based on previous work of Kumar Gala.
+ */
+#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_ARM_QCOM_IDS_H
+#define _DT_BINDINGS_ARM_QCOM_IDS_H
+
+/* qcom,msm-id */
+#define QCOM_ID_APQ8026				199
+#define QCOM_ID_MSM8916				206
+#define QCOM_ID_MSM8994				207
+#define QCOM_ID_MSM8996_3_0			246
+#define QCOM_ID_APQ8016				247
+#define QCOM_ID_MSM8216				248
+#define QCOM_ID_MSM8116				249
+#define QCOM_ID_MSM8616				250
+#define QCOM_ID_MSM8998				292
+#define QCOM_ID_SDM845				321
+
+/* qcom,board-id */
+#define QCOM_BOARD_ID(a, major, minor) \
+	(((major & 0xff) << 16) | ((minor & 0xff) << 8) | QCOM_BOARD_ID_##a)
+
+#define QCOM_BOARD_ID_MTP			8
+#define QCOM_BOARD_ID_DRAGONBOARD		10
+#define QCOM_BOARD_ID_SBC			24
+
+#endif /* _DT_BINDINGS_ARM_QCOM_IDS_H */