Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4774C433FE for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 08:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240861AbhLOIoI (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2021 03:44:08 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:37337 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231561AbhLOIoH (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2021 03:44:07 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9675C0508; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 03:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap47 ([10.202.2.97]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 15 Dec 2021 03:44:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=svenpeter.dev; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :cc:subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=plWu3ASybl5B1dQgYp4u8NdNa2AM b3bA+lObzK3DwaQ=; b=cBz5hYSvsUjHQhIePzcBZc/bBZ4W1aADKNuNxj1kDzfx 6G9kfaweAvcb8PGET/C6Wv1VI2JQ0QULK+uxNn+Zx6KIbpNd1BHW8mfMrdhbFj4V gz9HtWRzJom38HquuZa2uJCiEQZ5pu7NAMjHUO9pxb5ChVUY3/0Z4M+eSyvFqF64 ONlWSlRj2tfcFJ5Hi3zKO8lLuGAD/yv2bu/nbzPwx55+AZqVm7p8rESJh2enHiEC RKzXg3XuigYUzwpVGS5ve41O0GVD4d6W0KuPo/zQ2xtbKb1zeZbipQo5V911rPu8 D3lXPrm5Up6KYqYli3/Aq++EL0idc1VubbhGIrhYog== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=plWu3A Sybl5B1dQgYp4u8NdNa2AMb3bA+lObzK3DwaQ=; b=SPE7x4JjKomtPj4Zuz2hEu Ad7We6xF20DQGW7veXe+qiIxCL0o+aTpsvrxfudK/EBiTpR3QRxeNiUyveRY6X3s DOTtNUUzl4ifx4Pn2igvIhOgscy4RH5P+vT6hlytpEp4Bsn/tGgYgxhjrPPH8ERJ 1CRUB8UWqzeWByrr+oH8j9Ob4DXgrS7U10CtDex1higS/XRSzlG9Q07UwFrAFnM3 77XhfXyu8PcuXZmOrLKFbb/GxrPnQ57nas23jtBt6+m+XQv/WB/HYyXckaSCDe+y Ke/d9EdvjgP4ua/e9vtunhXoXOGGC3B797XdspjOk/Pm1EbI9jLLdsSXosjmJVHw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrledugdduudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfuvhgv nhcurfgvthgvrhdfuceoshhvvghnsehsvhgvnhhpvghtvghrrdguvghvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefgieegieffuefhtedtjefgteejteefleefgfefgfdvvddtgffhffduhedv feekffenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hsvhgvnhesshhvvghnphgvthgvrhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 65E35274042E; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 03:44:06 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-4524-g5e5d2efdba-fm-20211214.001-g5e5d2efd Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <072f4547-297c-40c6-852c-49d94a14583e@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20211209055049.99205-1-marcan@marcan.st> <3fb087c1-2d67-4527-ad63-1f8ce54e6965@www.fastmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 09:43:45 +0100 From: "Sven Peter" To: "Hector Martin" Cc: "Alyssa Rosenzweig" , "Mark Kettenis" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, "Jassi Brar" , "Rob Herring" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Apple mailbox fixup: switch to generic compatibles Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 04:55, Hector Martin wrote: > On 10/12/2021 01.33, Sven Peter wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, at 06:50, Hector Martin wrote: >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Just a quick fix for the Apple mailbox compatible. Similar to [1], we >>> intend to use SoC-specific compatibles only for potential quirks, and >>> rely on a generic compatible to allow for forward-compatibility as long >>> as things don't break. >> >> I vaguely remember a brief discussion about this and I think we thought about >> using "t6000-asc", "t8103-asc" in this case since this specific mailbox hardware >> was only introduced in the M1. I think Apple calls this variant ascwrap-v4 >> and m3wrap-v2. >> >> Doing it like you suggested is also fine with me though. > > I think I remember that one... seems this is ascwrap-v4 in t8101 too, so > not quite introduced with M1. But that one doesn't have m3wraps (or > doesn't use them). > > Since Apple do have some kind of sane versioning for these it seems, > maybe we should follow their numbers and call them apple,asc-mailbox-v4 > and apple,m3-mailbox-v2? Sure, sounds good to me. Sven