On 08/08/2023 15:18, Md Danish Anwar wrote:
> On 08/08/23 5:38 pm, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:30:43PM +0530, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
>>> This series introduces Industrial Ethernet Peripheral (IEP) driver to
>>> support timestamping of ethernet packets and thus support PTP and PPS
>>> for PRU ICSSG ethernet ports.
>>>
>>> This series also adds 10M full duplex support for ICSSG ethernet driver.
>>>
>>> There are two IEP instances. IEP0 is used for packet timestamping while IEP1
>>> is used for 10M full duplex support.
>>>
>>> This is v2 of the series [v1]. It addresses comments made on [v1].
>>> This series is based on linux-next(#next-20230807).
>>>
>>> Changes from v1 to v2:
>>> *) Addressed Simon's comment to fix reverse xmas tree declaration. Some APIs
>>> in patch 3 and 4 were not following reverse xmas tree variable declaration.
>>> Fixed it in this version.
>>> *) Addressed Conor's comments and removed unsupported SoCs from compatible
>>> comment in patch 1.
>>
>> I'm sorry I missed responding there before you sent v2, it was a bank
>> holiday yesterday. I'm curious why you removed them, rather than just
>> added them with a fallback to the ti,am654-icss-iep compatible, given
>> your comment that "the same compatible currently works for all these
>> 3 SoCs".
>
> I removed them as currently the driver is being upstreamed only for AM654x,
> once I start up-streaming the ICSSG driver for AM64 and any other SoC. I will
> add them here. If at that time we are still using same compatible, then I will
> modify the comment otherwise add new compatible.
>
> As of now, I don't see the need of adding other SoCs in iep binding as IEP
> driver up-streaming is only planned for AM654x as of now.
But, is there any difference in IEP hardware/driver for the other SoCs?
AFAIK the same IP is used on all SoCs.
If there is no hardware/code change then we don't need to introduce a new compatible.
The comment for all SoCs can already be there right from the start.
--
cheers,
-roger
On 08/08/23 5:52 pm, Roger Quadros wrote:
>
>
> On 08/08/2023 15:18, Md Danish Anwar wrote:
>> On 08/08/23 5:38 pm, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:30:43PM +0530, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
>>>> This series introduces Industrial Ethernet Peripheral (IEP) driver to
>>>> support timestamping of ethernet packets and thus support PTP and PPS
>>>> for PRU ICSSG ethernet ports.
>>>>
>>>> This series also adds 10M full duplex support for ICSSG ethernet driver.
>>>>
>>>> There are two IEP instances. IEP0 is used for packet timestamping while IEP1
>>>> is used for 10M full duplex support.
>>>>
>>>> This is v2 of the series [v1]. It addresses comments made on [v1].
>>>> This series is based on linux-next(#next-20230807).
>>>>
>>>> Changes from v1 to v2:
>>>> *) Addressed Simon's comment to fix reverse xmas tree declaration. Some APIs
>>>> in patch 3 and 4 were not following reverse xmas tree variable declaration.
>>>> Fixed it in this version.
>>>> *) Addressed Conor's comments and removed unsupported SoCs from compatible
>>>> comment in patch 1.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry I missed responding there before you sent v2, it was a bank
>>> holiday yesterday. I'm curious why you removed them, rather than just
>>> added them with a fallback to the ti,am654-icss-iep compatible, given
>>> your comment that "the same compatible currently works for all these
>>> 3 SoCs".
>>
>> I removed them as currently the driver is being upstreamed only for AM654x,
>> once I start up-streaming the ICSSG driver for AM64 and any other SoC. I will
>> add them here. If at that time we are still using same compatible, then I will
>> modify the comment otherwise add new compatible.
>>
>> As of now, I don't see the need of adding other SoCs in iep binding as IEP
>> driver up-streaming is only planned for AM654x as of now.
>
> But, is there any difference in IEP hardware/driver for the other SoCs?
> AFAIK the same IP is used on all SoCs.
>
> If there is no hardware/code change then we don't need to introduce a new compatible.
> The comment for all SoCs can already be there right from the start.
>
There is no code change. The same compatible is used for other SoCs. Even if
the code is same I was thinking to keep the compatible as below now
- ti,am654-icss-iep # for K3 AM65x SoCs
and once other SoCs are introduced, I will just modify the comment,
- ti,am654-icss-iep # for K3 AM65x, AM64x SoCs
But we can also keep the all SoCs in comment right from start as well. I am
fine with both.
Conor / Roger, Please let me know which approach should I go with in next revision?
--
Thanks and Regards,
Danish.