Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:47:44 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@nxp.com>,
        kuldip dwivedi <kuldip.dwivedi@puresoftware.com>,
        "linux-spi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@nxp.com>,
        Varun Sethi <V.Sethi@nxp.com>,
        Tanveer Alam <tanveer.alam@puresoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-fsl-dspi: Add ACPI support
Message-ID: <20200826144744.c4yzgoovk6f4t3id@skbuf>
References: <20200821131029.11440-1-kuldip.dwivedi@puresoftware.com>
 <20200821140718.GH4870@sirena.org.uk>
 <c810740d75f64e308fd362e6c6a5f437@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200822152118.rlwbcgfk4abjldtg@skbuf>
 <VE1PR04MB6768699B6D7A507A5BF82F9191540@VE1PR04MB6768.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20200826114758.4agph53ag2fin6um@skbuf>
 <20200826142312.GH4965@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200826142312.GH4965@sirena.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 03:23:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:47:58PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 
> > - The compatible string plays an integral part in the functionality of
> >   the spi-fsl-dspi driver. I want to see a solution for ACPI where the
> >   driver knows on which SoC it's running on. Otherwise it doesn't know
> >   what are the silicon parameters of the DSPI module (XSPI present or
> >   not, DMA present or not, FIFO depth). I don't see that now. I just see
> >   something hardcoded for:
> >   { "NXP0005", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&devtype_data[LS2085A], }
> 
> Based on some other stuff I've seen with ACPI on NXP stuff it looks like
> they're following the same scheme but only caring about that one SoC for
> the time being.

So, no argument about caring only about ACPI on one particular SoC for
the time being, but there's a big difference between a solution that
works for N=1 and one that works for N=2...

Showing my ignorance here, but is there something equivalent to
of_machine_is_compatible() for ACPI?

Thanks,
-Vladimir