Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <9664a623-3c58-49e8-1b9a-69335d844448@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 08:53:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: firmware: scm: Add QDU1000/QRU1000
 compatibles
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
        Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@quicinc.com>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221001030641.29354-1-quic_molvera@quicinc.com>
 <20221001030641.29354-2-quic_molvera@quicinc.com>
 <09f5d364-320e-9ecc-2c2b-68066c61f802@linaro.org>
 <e9c44e3b-b29f-0f47-b822-da0f4f2264cc@quicinc.com>
 <CAA8EJprE-mOOH8VF3m8TRb+0q=3_8NpvzdEAugabDaDbq6FMVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJprE-mOOH8VF3m8TRb+0q=3_8NpvzdEAugabDaDbq6FMVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 04/10/2022 00:14, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 01:02, Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/1/2022 4:25 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 01/10/2022 05:06, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>>> Add compatibles for scm driver for QDU1000 and QRU1000 platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@quicinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml | 2 ++
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml
>>>> index c5b76c9f7ad0..b47a5dda3c3e 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.yaml
>>>> @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ properties:
>>>>            - qcom,scm-sm8250
>>>>            - qcom,scm-sm8350
>>>>            - qcom,scm-sm8450
>>>> +          - qcom,scm-qdu1000
>>>> +          - qcom,scm-qru1000
> 
> I think after seeing all the patchsets it's time to ask the following
> question. Do we really need a duplicate compatibility families:
> qdu1000 vs qru1000? I'd suggest using a single set of compatibile
> strings in most of the cases.
> Settle down onto a single name (qdu,qru, qdru, whatever) and define
> distinct compat strings only when there is an actual difference?
> 
> E.g .we don't have separate compatible strings for all the sda660,
> apq8096, etc. unless this is required by the corresponding hardware
> block not being compatible with corresponding sdm or msm counterpart.
> 

I am not that fluent in Qualcomm naming, so let me ask - what are the
differences between QDU and QRU?

For compatible (and/or similar) devices the general recommendation is to
have specific compatibles followed by fallback. Even if devices are
very, very, very similar, usually the recommendation still stays.

Best regards,
Krzysztof