Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230919024943.3088916-1-tylor_yang@himax.corp-partner.google.com>
 <20230919024943.3088916-2-tylor_yang@himax.corp-partner.google.com>
 <20230919-70b2f1e368a8face73468dfa@fedora> <CAGD2q_anfBP78jck6AbMNtgAggjOgaB3P6dkmq9tONHP45adFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230919-cc4646dbfb953bd34e05658c@fedora> <CAGD2q_bkTpvXiomWb_yerNjQfMVKOctYgBqF_RBSo_jYqyyyxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230922-unclothed-bottom-5531329f9724@spud>
In-Reply-To: <20230922-unclothed-bottom-5531329f9724@spud>
From:   yang tylor <tylor_yang@himax.corp-partner.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2023 17:43:54 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGD2q_YsFdDVhE4JCmQSGMWOdpe_yzG8-CdWYPXtjeZsManvgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: input: Introduce Himax HID-over-SPI device
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc:     dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
        jikos@kernel.org, benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        poyuan_chang@himax.corp-partner.google.com, hbarnor@chromium.org,
        "jingyliang@chromium.org" <jingyliang@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:22=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wro=
te:
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 03:56:25PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:09=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>=
 wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 05:31:29PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
>
> > > > The behavior of "himax,boot_time_fw_upgrade" seems not stable and
> > > > should be removed. "himax,fw_in_flash", I use the kernel config for
> > > > user to select.
> > >
> > > That seems like a bad idea, we want to be able to build one kernel th=
at
> > > works for all hardware at the same time.
> > >
> > I see, so I should take that back?
> > I'll explain more about it.
>
> Are there particular ICs where the firmware would always be in flash and
> others where it would never be? Or is this a choice made by the board or
> system designer?
>
Most cases it's about the system designer's decision. But some ICs may be f=
orced
to use flash because of its architecture(multiple IC inside, need to
load firmware to
multiple IC's sram by master IC). But if there is no limitation on
this part, most system
designers will prefer flashless.

> Thanks,
> Conor.

Thanks,
Tylor