Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2023 21:07:49 +0200
From:   Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        phone-devel@vger.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht,
        Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916/39: Add QDSP6
Message-ID: <ZRMsBcqvB9b-IxZi@gerhold.net>
References: <20230926-msm8916-modem-v1-0-398eec74bac9@gerhold.net>
 <20230926-msm8916-modem-v1-2-398eec74bac9@gerhold.net>
 <698c8d60-e284-4267-8349-b327712c94cc@linaro.org>
 <ZRMo8oxIKJIY5WG8@gerhold.net>
 <959825a0-5327-46b7-b91d-9753601c7ba0@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <959825a0-5327-46b7-b91d-9753601c7ba0@linaro.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 09:05:24PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 26.09.2023 20:54, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 08:46:36PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 26.09.2023 18:51, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> >>> MSM8916 and MSM8939 do not have a dedicated ADSP. Instead, the audio
> >>> services via APR are also implemented by the modem DSP. Audio can be
> >>> either routed via the modem DSP (necessary for voice call audio etc)
> >>> or directly sent to the LPASS hardware (currently used by DB410c).
> >>> Bypassing QDSP6 audio is only possible with special firmware
> >>> (on DB410c) or when the modem DSP is completely disabled.
> >>>
> >>> Add the typical nodes for QDSP6 audio to msm8916.dtsi and msm8939.dtsi.
> >>> The apr node is disabled by default to avoid changing behavior for
> >>> devices like DB410c that use the bypassed audio path.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>
> >>> ---
> >> I'm generally grumpy with regards to multi-soc changes that
> >> have no need to be multi-soc..
> >>
> > 
> > Well it's 100% the same diff so reviewing it separately doesn't really
> > make sense IMHO. When I do "msm8916/39" patches these are generally the
> > changes where strictly speaking there is no need to duplicate at all.
> > It could go into a common include between both. We just haven't found
> > a good solution/agreement yet how sharing SoC components could work.
> My bottom line is that, somebody trying to track down an issue on
> one may need to unnecessarily resolve 2 merge conflicts when reverting :/
> 

I mean you could easily discard the changes in the other .dtsi. Probably
a single shell command if one knows enough "Git-fu".

Stephan