2023-07-10 11:08:53

by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID

Kathiravan T (2):
dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID
soc: qcom: socinfo: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID

drivers/soc/qcom/socinfo.c | 1 -
include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)

--
2.34.1



2023-07-10 11:38:43

by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID

IPQ5019 SoC is not available in production. Lets drop it.

Signed-off-by: Kathiravan T <[email protected]>
---
include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
index bcbe9ee2cdaf..179dd56b2d95 100644
--- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
+++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
@@ -250,7 +250,6 @@
#define QCOM_ID_QRU1000 539
#define QCOM_ID_QDU1000 545
#define QCOM_ID_QDU1010 587
-#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019 569
#define QCOM_ID_QRU1032 588
#define QCOM_ID_QRU1052 589
#define QCOM_ID_QRU1062 590
--
2.34.1


2023-07-10 12:00:13

by Krzysztof Kozlowski

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID

On 10/07/2023 12:54, Kathiravan T wrote:
> IPQ5019 SoC is not available in production. Lets drop it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan T <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> index bcbe9ee2cdaf..179dd56b2d95 100644
> --- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> @@ -250,7 +250,6 @@
> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1000 539
> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1000 545
> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1010 587
> -#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019 569

What about users of this binding? What's the impact on them? When did
the SoC become obsolete and unsupported by Qualcomm? Remember that
ceasing a production does not mean that magically all users of a product
disappear...


Best regards,
Krzysztof


2023-07-10 12:17:31

by Konrad Dybcio

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID

On 10.07.2023 13:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/07/2023 12:54, Kathiravan T wrote:
>> IPQ5019 SoC is not available in production. Lets drop it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan T <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>> index bcbe9ee2cdaf..179dd56b2d95 100644
>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>> @@ -250,7 +250,6 @@
>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1000 539
>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1000 545
>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1010 587
>> -#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019 569
>
> What about users of this binding? What's the impact on them? When did
> the SoC become obsolete and unsupported by Qualcomm? Remember that
> ceasing a production does not mean that magically all users of a product
> disappear...
This + from my experience, SOCID entries are set in stone and freed
indices are never reclaimed

Konrad
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

2023-07-11 11:28:12

by Kathiravan Thirumoorthy

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID


On 7/10/2023 5:40 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 10.07.2023 13:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 10/07/2023 12:54, Kathiravan T wrote:
>>> IPQ5019 SoC is not available in production. Lets drop it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan T <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 1 -
>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>>> index bcbe9ee2cdaf..179dd56b2d95 100644
>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>>> @@ -250,7 +250,6 @@
>>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1000 539
>>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1000 545
>>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1010 587
>>> -#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019 569
>> What about users of this binding? What's the impact on them? When did
>> the SoC become obsolete and unsupported by Qualcomm? Remember that
>> ceasing a production does not mean that magically all users of a product
>> disappear...
> This + from my experience, SOCID entries are set in stone and freed
> indices are never reclaimed


This SKU is planned but never productized. That's why I removed it.

May be I should be more precise in the commit title. Should I leave it
as it is / remove it?


Thanks, Kathiravan T.

>
> Konrad
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>

2023-07-11 11:30:04

by Krzysztof Kozlowski

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: drop the IPQ5019 SoC ID

On 11/07/2023 13:02, Kathiravan T wrote:
>
> On 7/10/2023 5:40 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 10.07.2023 13:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2023 12:54, Kathiravan T wrote:
>>>> IPQ5019 SoC is not available in production. Lets drop it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan T <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 1 -
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>>>> index bcbe9ee2cdaf..179dd56b2d95 100644
>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
>>>> @@ -250,7 +250,6 @@
>>>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1000 539
>>>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1000 545
>>>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1010 587
>>>> -#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019 569
>>> What about users of this binding? What's the impact on them? When did
>>> the SoC become obsolete and unsupported by Qualcomm? Remember that
>>> ceasing a production does not mean that magically all users of a product
>>> disappear...
>> This + from my experience, SOCID entries are set in stone and freed
>> indices are never reclaimed
>
>
> This SKU is planned but never productized. That's why I removed it.

If you mean this was never produced, then yes, it can be removed and
your commit msg should be a bit more precise about it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof