| Message ID | 20230720084534.6461-2-quic_sridsn@quicinc.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add initial support for various RDPs of IPQ9574 family | expand |
On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: > Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 > family of SoCs. > > AL02-C3 - rdp437 > AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy > AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch > AL02-C11 - rdp467 > AL02-C12 - rdp455 > AL02-C13 - rdp459 > AL02-C15 - rdp457 > AL02-C16 - rdp456 > AL02-C17 - rdp469 > AL02-C19 - rdp461 > AL03-C2 - rdp458 > > Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml > index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml > @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | > adp > ap-al01-c1 > ap-al02-c2 > + ap-al02-c3 > ap-al02-c6 > ap-al02-c7 > ap-al02-c8 > ap-al02-c9 > + ap-al02-c10 > + ap-al02-c11 > + ap-al02-c12 > + ap-al02-c13 > + ap-al02-c15 > + ap-al02-c16 > + ap-al02-c17 > + ap-al02-c19 Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. Why do we need to do this? What's the point? > + ap-al03-c2 > ap-mi01.2 > ap-mi01.3 > ap-mi01.6 > @@ -365,10 +375,20 @@ properties: > - enum: > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al01-c1 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c2 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c3 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c6 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c7 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c8 > - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c9 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c10 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c11 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c12 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c13 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c15 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c16 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c17 > + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c19 This looks fake. Sorry, but these boards have no differences. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: >> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 >> family of SoCs. >> >> AL02-C3 - rdp437 >> AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy >> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch >> AL02-C11 - rdp467 >> AL02-C12 - rdp455 >> AL02-C13 - rdp459 >> AL02-C15 - rdp457 >> AL02-C16 - rdp456 >> AL02-C17 - rdp469 >> AL02-C19 - rdp461 >> AL03-C2 - rdp458 >> >> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | >> adp >> ap-al01-c1 >> ap-al02-c2 >> + ap-al02-c3 >> ap-al02-c6 >> ap-al02-c7 >> ap-al02-c8 >> ap-al02-c9 >> + ap-al02-c10 >> + ap-al02-c11 >> + ap-al02-c12 >> + ap-al02-c13 >> + ap-al02-c15 >> + ap-al02-c16 >> + ap-al02-c17 >> + ap-al02-c19 > > Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. > > Why do we need to do this? What's the point? Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually going to be supported and useful. If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device trees upstream. Konrad
On 26/07/2023 07:03, Sridharan S N wrote: > > On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: >>>> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 >>>> family of SoCs. >>>> >>>> AL02-C3 - rdp437 >>>> AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy >>>> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch >>>> AL02-C11 - rdp467 >>>> AL02-C12 - rdp455 >>>> AL02-C13 - rdp459 >>>> AL02-C15 - rdp457 >>>> AL02-C16 - rdp456 >>>> AL02-C17 - rdp469 >>>> AL02-C19 - rdp461 >>>> AL03-C2 - rdp458 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | >>>> adp >>>> ap-al01-c1 >>>> ap-al02-c2 >>>> + ap-al02-c3 >>>> ap-al02-c6 >>>> ap-al02-c7 >>>> ap-al02-c8 >>>> ap-al02-c9 >>>> + ap-al02-c10 >>>> + ap-al02-c11 >>>> + ap-al02-c12 >>>> + ap-al02-c13 >>>> + ap-al02-c15 >>>> + ap-al02-c16 >>>> + ap-al02-c17 >>>> + ap-al02-c19 >>> Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. >>> >>> Why do we need to do this? What's the point? >> Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test >> prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually >> going to be supported and useful. >> >> If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device >> trees upstream. >> >> Konrad > > These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations. > IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use > all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version , > will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly So still no answer why do we need to list it as possible boards. Especially that it messes with compatible style, because c[1-9] looks like board version. I suggest don't add these board types and drop existing ones. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 7/26/2023 12:51 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/07/2023 07:03, Sridharan S N wrote: >> On 7/20/2023 3:18 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> On 20.07.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 20/07/2023 10:45, Sridharan S N wrote: >>>>> Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 >>>>> family of SoCs. >>>>> >>>>> AL02-C3 - rdp437 >>>>> AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy >>>>> AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch >>>>> AL02-C11 - rdp467 >>>>> AL02-C12 - rdp455 >>>>> AL02-C13 - rdp459 >>>>> AL02-C15 - rdp457 >>>>> AL02-C16 - rdp456 >>>>> AL02-C17 - rdp469 >>>>> AL02-C19 - rdp461 >>>>> AL03-C2 - rdp458 >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>>> index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml >>>>> @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | >>>>> adp >>>>> ap-al01-c1 >>>>> ap-al02-c2 >>>>> + ap-al02-c3 >>>>> ap-al02-c6 >>>>> ap-al02-c7 >>>>> ap-al02-c8 >>>>> ap-al02-c9 >>>>> + ap-al02-c10 >>>>> + ap-al02-c11 >>>>> + ap-al02-c12 >>>>> + ap-al02-c13 >>>>> + ap-al02-c15 >>>>> + ap-al02-c16 >>>>> + ap-al02-c17 >>>>> + ap-al02-c19 >>>> Why? I asked once, but there was no feedback from Qualcomm. >>>> >>>> Why do we need to do this? What's the point? >>> Another question would be, whether these boards are just one-off test >>> prototypes of which there exist like 5-10 units, or are they actually >>> going to be supported and useful. >>> >>> If it's the former, I don't think it makes sense to keep the device >>> trees upstream. >>> >>> Konrad >> These are all not test rdps and each rdps has its own configurations. >> IPQ9574 has four pcie instances and one QDSP processor. Not all rdps use >> all of the interfaces and it will vary for each rdp. In next version , >> will post with each rdp's configuration explicitly > > So still no answer why do we need to list it as possible boards. > Especially that it messes with compatible style, because c[1-9] looks > like board version. > > I suggest don't add these board types and drop existing ones. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Apologize for the late reply. IPQ bootloader doesn't need these info. we will send the patch to drop the existing ones Thanks, Sridharan
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml index dd66fd872c31..d992261da691 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml @@ -89,10 +89,20 @@ description: | adp ap-al01-c1 ap-al02-c2 + ap-al02-c3 ap-al02-c6 ap-al02-c7 ap-al02-c8 ap-al02-c9 + ap-al02-c10 + ap-al02-c11 + ap-al02-c12 + ap-al02-c13 + ap-al02-c15 + ap-al02-c16 + ap-al02-c17 + ap-al02-c19 + ap-al03-c2 ap-mi01.2 ap-mi01.3 ap-mi01.6 @@ -365,10 +375,20 @@ properties: - enum: - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al01-c1 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c2 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c3 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c6 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c7 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c8 - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c9 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c10 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c11 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c12 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c13 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c15 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c16 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c17 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al02-c19 + - qcom,ipq9574-ap-al03-c2 - const: qcom,ipq9574 - description: Sierra Wireless MangOH Green with WP8548 Module
Document the below listed (Reference Design Platform) RDP boards based on IPQ9574 family of SoCs. AL02-C3 - rdp437 AL02-C7 - rdp433-mht-phy AL02-C10 - rdp433-mht-switch AL02-C11 - rdp467 AL02-C12 - rdp455 AL02-C13 - rdp459 AL02-C15 - rdp457 AL02-C16 - rdp456 AL02-C17 - rdp469 AL02-C19 - rdp461 AL03-C2 - rdp458 Signed-off-by: Sridharan S N <quic_sridsn@quicinc.com> --- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)