Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-8515-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:45:26 +0100
Message-Id: <CXU22OZNAH2H.24YIQWBA4KE3C@fairphone.com>
From: "Luca Weiss" <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
To: "Konrad Dybcio" <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, "Dmitry Baryshkov"
 <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Cc: "Bjorn Andersson" <andersson@kernel.org>, "Rob Herring"
 <robh+dt@kernel.org>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
 "Heikki Krogerus" <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman"
 <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, <cros-qcom-dts-watchers@chromium.org>,
 <~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht>, <phone-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fairphone 5 PMIC-GLINK support (USB-C, charger,
 fuel gauge)
References: <20231220-fp5-pmic-glink-v1-0-2a1f8e3c661c@fairphone.com>
 <8d042095-1e09-45cc-9762-909fe8d663a9@linaro.org>
 <CXTU5MLN0YDS.29PPV8KZF8G9R@fairphone.com>
 <CAA8EJpoD3x=kVLu4x2yLtAqCp=wmGSU4ssq5Oj_SD5VQ=GyAYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d2007240-2779-4881-8e9d-1c4f5daa55e5@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <d2007240-2779-4881-8e9d-1c4f5daa55e5@linaro.org>

On Thu Dec 21, 2023 at 1:53 PM CET, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 21.12.2023 11:34, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 09:33, Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com> wro=
te:
> >>
> >> On Wed Dec 20, 2023 at 1:32 PM CET, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>> On 20.12.2023 11:02, Luca Weiss wrote:
> >>>> This series adds all the necessary bits to enable USB-C role switchi=
ng,
> >>>> charger and fuel gauge (all via pmic-glink) on Fairphone 5.
> >>>>
> >>>> One thing that could be made different is the pmic-glink compatible.
> >>>> I've chosen to use qcm6490 compatible for it and not sc7280 since
> >>>> there's plenty of firmware variety on sc7280-based platforms and the=
y
> >>>> might require different quirks in the future, so limit this PDOS qui=
rk
> >>>> to just qcm6490 for now.
> >>>>
> >>>> If someone thinks it should be qcom,sc7280-pmic-glink, please let me
> >>>> know :)
> >>> IMO it's best to continue using the "base soc" (which just so happene=
d
> >>> to fall onto sc7280 this time around) for all compatibles, unless the
> >>> derivatives actually had changes
> >>
> >> Hi Konrad,
> >>
> >> I think at some point I asked Dmitry what he thought and he mentioned
> >> qcm6490. Even found the message again:
> >>
> >>> well, since it is a firmware thing, you might want to emphasise that.
> >>> So from my POV qcm6490 makes more sense
> >>
> >> But yeah since it's likely that sc7280 firmware behaves the same as
> >> qcm6490 firmware it's probably okay to use sc7280 compatible, worst ca=
se
> >> we change it later :) I'll send a v2 with those changes.
> >=20
> > Worst case we end up with sc7280 which has yet another slightly
> > different UCSI / PMIC GLINK implementation, but the compatible string
> > is already taken.
> > I still suppose that this should be a qcm6490-related string.
> Right, let's keep qcm then

Ack from my side also. Thanks for the feedback!

>
> Konrad