[PATCH v1 0/7] arm: qcom: mdm9615: first round of bindings and DT fixes

[PATCH v1 0/7] arm: qcom: mdm9615: first round of bindings and DT fixes

[Neil Armstrong]

This is a first round of trivial bindings & DT fixes for the MDM9615 platform.

This first round focuses on trivial changes, the remaining work will
mainly be .txt to .yaml transition of old qcom pmic & co device bindings.

To: Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Dependencies: None
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

---
Neil Armstrong (7):
      dt-bindings: arm: qcom: document the swir,mangoh-green-wp8548 board
      arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615*: add SPDX-License-Identifier
      arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: add missing reg in cpu@0 node
      arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid spi-max-frequency gsbi3_spi node
      arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles
      arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid interrupt-names from pl18x mmc nodes
      arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove useless amba subnode

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml    |   6 +
 .../boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts  |  39 +------
 arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548.dtsi         |  39 +------
 arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi                | 127 +++++++--------------
 4 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 162 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: f76349cf41451c5c42a99f18a9163377e4b364ff
change-id: 20220928-mdm9615-dt-schema-fixes-66d4d0ccb7c7

Best regards,
-- 
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

[PATCH v1 1/7] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: document the swir,mangoh-green-wp8548 board

[Neil Armstrong]

The qcom.yaml was lacking documentation of this board, fix this.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
index fb1d00bcc847..e9f38f0cef19 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
@@ -262,6 +262,12 @@ properties:
               - qcom,ipq8074-hk10-c2
           - const: qcom,ipq8074
 
+      - description: Sierra Wireless MangOH Green with WP8548 Module
+        items:
+          - const: swir,mangoh-green-wp8548
+          - const: swir,wp8548
+          - const: qcom,mdm9615
+
       - description: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. SC7180 IDP
         items:
           - enum:

-- 
b4 0.10.0

Re: [PATCH v1 1/7] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: document the swir,mangoh-green-wp8548 board

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> The qcom.yaml was lacking documentation of this board, fix this.

It is documented in:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/swir.txt

so remove that other file and instead describe it like a conversion.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 1/7] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: document the swir,mangoh-green-wp8548 board

[Neil Armstrong]

On 28/09/2022 19:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> The qcom.yaml was lacking documentation of this board, fix this.
> 
> It is documented in:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/swir.txt
> 
> so remove that other file and instead describe it like a conversion.

Ack

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

[PATCH v1 2/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615*: add SPDX-License-Identifier

[Neil Armstrong]

Replace the licence blob by a clean SPDX-License-Identifier

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts
index 0827de5426c1..073c15354483 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts
@@ -1,46 +1,9 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR X11
 /*
  * Device Tree Source for mangOH Green Board with WP8548 Module
  *
  * Copyright (C) 2016 BayLibre, SAS.
  * Author : Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
- *
- * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
- * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
- * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
- * whole.
- *
- *  a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
- *     modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
- *     published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
- *     License, or (at your option) any later version.
- *
- *     This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- *     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
- *     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
- *     GNU General Public License for more details.
- *
- * Or, alternatively,
- *
- *  b) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
- *     obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
- *     files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
- *     restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
- *     copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
- *     sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
- *     Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
- *     conditions:
- *
- *     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
- *     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
- *
- *     THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
- *     EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
- *     OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
- *     NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
- *     HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
- *     WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
- *     FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
- *     OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
  */
 
 #include <dt-bindings/input/input.h>
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548.dtsi
index 49de1821ac3a..146ecee50998 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548.dtsi
@@ -1,46 +1,9 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR X11
 /*
  * Device Tree Source for Sierra Wireless WP8548 Module
  *
  * Copyright (C) 2016 BayLibre, SAS.
  * Author : Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
- *
- * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
- * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
- * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
- * whole.
- *
- *  a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
- *     modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
- *     published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
- *     License, or (at your option) any later version.
- *
- *     This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- *     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
- *     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
- *     GNU General Public License for more details.
- *
- * Or, alternatively,
- *
- *  b) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
- *     obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
- *     files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
- *     restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
- *     copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
- *     sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
- *     Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
- *     conditions:
- *
- *     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
- *     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
- *
- *     THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
- *     EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
- *     OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
- *     NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
- *     HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
- *     WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
- *     FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
- *     OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
  */
 
 #include "qcom-mdm9615.dtsi"
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
index b47c86412de2..b06bbe25fdd4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
@@ -1,46 +1,9 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR X11
 /*
  * Device Tree Source for Qualcomm MDM9615 SoC
  *
  * Copyright (C) 2016 BayLibre, SAS.
  * Author : Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
- *
- * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
- * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
- * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
- * whole.
- *
- *  a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
- *     modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
- *     published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
- *     License, or (at your option) any later version.
- *
- *     This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
- *     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
- *     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
- *     GNU General Public License for more details.
- *
- * Or, alternatively,
- *
- *  b) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
- *     obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
- *     files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
- *     restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
- *     copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
- *     sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
- *     Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
- *     conditions:
- *
- *     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
- *     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
- *
- *     THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
- *     EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
- *     OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
- *     NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
- *     HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
- *     WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
- *     FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
- *     OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
  */
 
 /dts-v1/;

-- 
b4 0.10.0

Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615*: add SPDX-License-Identifier

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> Replace the licence blob by a clean SPDX-License-Identifier
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
> 


Rebase on linux-next - you use old Bjorn's email address.

> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts
> index 0827de5426c1..073c15354483 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts
> @@ -1,46 +1,9 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR X11
>  /*
>   * Device Tree Source for mangOH Green Board with WP8548 Module
>   *
>   * Copyright (C) 2016 BayLibre, SAS.
>   * Author : Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
> - *
> - * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
> - * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
> - * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
> - * whole.
> - *
> - *  a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> - *     modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> - *     published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> - *     License, or (at your option) any later version.
> - *
> - *     This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> - *     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> - *     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> - *     GNU General Public License for more details.
> - *
> - * Or, alternatively,
> - *
> - *  b) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
> - *     obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
> - *     files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
> - *     restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
> - *     copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
> - *     sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
> - *     Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
> - *     conditions:
> - *
> - *     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> - *     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> - *
> - *     THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> - *     EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
> - *     OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
> - *     NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
> - *     HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
> - *     WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
> - *     FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
> - *     OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

The text is actually MIT, not X11. I think they differ by last X11
trademark statement.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615*: add SPDX-License-Identifier

[Neil Armstrong]

On 28/09/2022 19:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> Replace the licence blob by a clean SPDX-License-Identifier
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
>>
> 
> 
> Rebase on linux-next - you use old Bjorn's email address.


Yep sorry, my first submission from Linaro... I added Bjorn's new email (+mine) in my local mailmap so it won't happen anymore.

> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts
>> index 0827de5426c1..073c15354483 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dts
>> @@ -1,46 +1,9 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR X11
>>   /*
>>    * Device Tree Source for mangOH Green Board with WP8548 Module
>>    *
>>    * Copyright (C) 2016 BayLibre, SAS.
>>    * Author : Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>> - *
>> - * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
>> - * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
>> - * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
>> - * whole.
>> - *
>> - *  a) This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> - *     modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
>> - *     published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
>> - *     License, or (at your option) any later version.
>> - *
>> - *     This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> - *     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> - *     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>> - *     GNU General Public License for more details.
>> - *
>> - * Or, alternatively,
>> - *
>> - *  b) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
>> - *     obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
>> - *     files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
>> - *     restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
>> - *     copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
>> - *     sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
>> - *     Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
>> - *     conditions:
>> - *
>> - *     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>> - *     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>> - *
>> - *     THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
>> - *     EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
>> - *     OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
>> - *     NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
>> - *     HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
>> - *     WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
>> - *     FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
>> - *     OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> 
> The text is actually MIT, not X11. I think they differ by last X11
> trademark statement.

You're right, I checked the amlogic DT SPDX migration that used the same licence blob [1],
and we switched to SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT).

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

[1] 114abfe1aa5f ("ARM64: dts: amlogic: Convert to new-style SPDX license identifiers")

Thanks,
Neil

[PATCH v1 3/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: add missing reg in cpu@0 node

[Neil Armstrong]

Fixes cpu@0: 'reg' is a required property from dtbs check.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
index b06bbe25fdd4..e547becc9f75 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ cpus {
 		cpu0: cpu@0 {
 			compatible = "arm,cortex-a5";
 			device_type = "cpu";
+			reg = <0>;
 			next-level-cache = <&L2>;
 		};
 	};

-- 
b4 0.10.0

Re: [PATCH v1 3/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: add missing reg in cpu@0 node

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> Fixes cpu@0: 'reg' is a required property from dtbs check.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
> index b06bbe25fdd4..e547becc9f75 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ cpus {
>  		cpu0: cpu@0 {
>  			compatible = "arm,cortex-a5";
>  			device_type = "cpu";
> +			reg = <0>;

Put reg after compatible.

>  			next-level-cache = <&L2>;
>  		};
>  	};
> 

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH v1 4/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid spi-max-frequency gsbi3_spi node

[Neil Armstrong]

The spi-max-frequency property has nothing to do in the controller's node,
remove it and fix the 'spi-max-frequency' was unexpected dtbs check error.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
index e547becc9f75..792aa98cc136 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
@@ -170,7 +170,6 @@ gsbi3_spi: spi@16280000 {
 				#size-cells = <0>;
 				reg = <0x16280000 0x1000>;
 				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 151 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
-				spi-max-frequency = <24000000>;
 
 				clocks = <&gcc GSBI3_QUP_CLK>, <&gcc GSBI3_H_CLK>;
 				clock-names = "core", "iface";

-- 
b4 0.10.0

Re: [PATCH v1 4/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid spi-max-frequency gsbi3_spi node

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> The spi-max-frequency property has nothing to do in the controller's node,
> remove it and fix the 'spi-max-frequency' was unexpected dtbs check error.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>


Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Neil Armstrong]

The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles
was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both.

The pwrkey compatible is left to PM8921, unlike the others because
the interface is stricly compatible with the PM9821 pwrkey.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
index 792aa98cc136..935f7b222200 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
@@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ qcom,ssbi@500000 {
 			qcom,controller-type = "pmic-arbiter";
 
 			pmicintc: pmic@0 {
-				compatible = "qcom,pm8018", "qcom,pm8921";
+				compatible = "qcom,pm8018";
 				interrupts = <GIC_PPI 226 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
 				#interrupt-cells = <2>;
 				interrupt-controller;
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ pmicintc: pmic@0 {
 				#size-cells = <0>;
 
 				pwrkey@1c {
-					compatible = "qcom,pm8018-pwrkey", "qcom,pm8921-pwrkey";
+					compatible = "qcom,pm8921-pwrkey";
 					reg = <0x1c>;
 					interrupt-parent = <&pmicintc>;
 					interrupts = <50 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ pmicmpp: mpps@50 {
 				};
 
 				rtc@11d {
-					compatible = "qcom,pm8018-rtc", "qcom,pm8921-rtc";
+					compatible = "qcom,pm8018-rtc";
 					interrupt-parent = <&pmicintc>;
 					interrupts = <39 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
 					reg = <0x11d>;

-- 
b4 0.10.0

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles
> was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both.

Why? It makes sense for backwards compatibility. If you think it does
not make sense, please say why.

> 
> The pwrkey compatible is left to PM8921, unlike the others because
> the interface is stricly compatible with the PM9821 pwrkey.

typo: strictly
typo: PM8921

Again, why? The old code looked correct. In all three places.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
> 

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Neil Armstrong]

Hi,

On 28/09/2022 20:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles
>> was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both.
> 
> Why? It makes sense for backwards compatibility. If you think it does
> not make sense, please say why.

We had the same debate at submission 7y ago, some of the pm8018 new compatible
were rejected in bindings & drivers so I left both...

As of today only the pwrkey bindings is missing, so should I resubmit the pm8018-pwrkey bidings and
drop the pm8921-pwrkey compatible ?

> 
>>
>> The pwrkey compatible is left to PM8921, unlike the others because
>> the interface is stricly compatible with the PM9821 pwrkey.
> 
> typo: strictly
> typo: PM8921
> 
> Again, why? The old code looked correct. In all three places.

The qcom,pm8018-rtc require a single compatible, same for qcom,pm8018, so what's the way to fix it ?

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
>>
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
Thanks,
Neil

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/09/2022 10:29, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 28/09/2022 20:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles
>>> was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both.
>>
>> Why? It makes sense for backwards compatibility. If you think it does
>> not make sense, please say why.
> 
> We had the same debate at submission 7y ago, some of the pm8018 new compatible
> were rejected in bindings & drivers so I left both...
> 
> As of today only the pwrkey bindings is missing, so should I resubmit the pm8018-pwrkey bidings and
> drop the pm8921-pwrkey compatible ?

~7 years ago here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20160624220748.GB11719@dtor-ws/
you proposed to add something entirely different than we have here now
and than we talk about.

In that thread you correctly wrote:
"My point of view is that the devicetree describes the hardware and need
to have SoC specific compatible string since it describes the actual
silicon, and drivers must make sure to handle all the SoC or family
variants using the compatible string and the match data."

but implemented it entirely different. Maybe you refer to different mail
thread, I don't know, but that one is indeed wrong.

The DTS looks correct unless you have some real argument that it is not.

How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
document proper compatibles.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Neil Armstrong]

On 29/09/2022 11:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 10:29, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 28/09/2022 20:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles
>>>> was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both.
>>>
>>> Why? It makes sense for backwards compatibility. If you think it does
>>> not make sense, please say why.
>>
>> We had the same debate at submission 7y ago, some of the pm8018 new compatible
>> were rejected in bindings & drivers so I left both...
>>
>> As of today only the pwrkey bindings is missing, so should I resubmit the pm8018-pwrkey bidings and
>> drop the pm8921-pwrkey compatible ?
> 
> ~7 years ago here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20160624220748.GB11719@dtor-ws/
> you proposed to add something entirely different than we have here now
> and than we talk about.
> 
> In that thread you correctly wrote:
> "My point of view is that the devicetree describes the hardware and need
> to have SoC specific compatible string since it describes the actual
> silicon, and drivers must make sure to handle all the SoC or family
> variants using the compatible string and the match data."

And I'm happy this is still the policy! And I'm tried my best to follow this
in all my DT & bindings submissions, while DT-Schema helped a lot here.

> 
> but implemented it entirely different. Maybe you refer to different mail
> thread, I don't know, but that one is indeed wrong.

In the meantime things got much better, but at that time pushing a SoC bringup
was a pain (I did 2 at the time, the other one is the OX810SE) and I even
mentioned it in a talk ([1] slides 27 to 30).

So I added both to be sure that at some point a driver would probe against
one of the compatible entries...

> 
> The DTS looks correct unless you have some real argument that it is not.
> 
> How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
> document proper compatibles.

What do you mean ? There's no point to keep the PM8921 compatibles, the gpio
and PMIC bindings already enforces to only have the PM8018 compatible.

The only issue is about the PM8018 pwrkey, where the solution would be
to actually re-submit [1] by documenting qcom,pm8018-pwrkey and adding the entry
in the drivers/input/misc/pmic8xxx-pwrkey.c driver.

Or maybe I missed something.

[1] https://www.slideshare.net/superna/elce-2016-neil-armstrong-no-its-never-too-late-to-upstream-your-legacy-linux-based-platform
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1466759887-25394-3-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com/

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Thanks,
Neil

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/09/2022 12:56, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 11:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 29/09/2022 10:29, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 28/09/2022 20:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles
>>>>> was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both.
>>>>
>>>> Why? It makes sense for backwards compatibility. If you think it does
>>>> not make sense, please say why.
>>>
>>> We had the same debate at submission 7y ago, some of the pm8018 new compatible
>>> were rejected in bindings & drivers so I left both...
>>>
>>> As of today only the pwrkey bindings is missing, so should I resubmit the pm8018-pwrkey bidings and
>>> drop the pm8921-pwrkey compatible ?
>>
>> ~7 years ago here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20160624220748.GB11719@dtor-ws/
>> you proposed to add something entirely different than we have here now
>> and than we talk about.
>>
>> In that thread you correctly wrote:
>> "My point of view is that the devicetree describes the hardware and need
>> to have SoC specific compatible string since it describes the actual
>> silicon, and drivers must make sure to handle all the SoC or family
>> variants using the compatible string and the match data."
> 
> And I'm happy this is still the policy! And I'm tried my best to follow this
> in all my DT & bindings submissions, while DT-Schema helped a lot here.
> 
>>
>> but implemented it entirely different. Maybe you refer to different mail
>> thread, I don't know, but that one is indeed wrong.
> 
> In the meantime things got much better, but at that time pushing a SoC bringup
> was a pain (I did 2 at the time, the other one is the OX810SE) and I even
> mentioned it in a talk ([1] slides 27 to 30).
> 
> So I added both to be sure that at some point a driver would probe against
> one of the compatible entries...
> 
>>
>> The DTS looks correct unless you have some real argument that it is not.
>>
>> How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
>> document proper compatibles.
> 
> What do you mean ? There's no point to keep the PM8921 compatibles, the gpio

I asked at beginning - why? Why there is no point to keep them?

> and PMIC bindings already enforces to only have the PM8018 compatible.

That is just partial argument because binding does not match DTS. So
something is not correct. Why do you assume bindings are correct?

> 
> The only issue is about the PM8018 pwrkey, where the solution would be
> to actually re-submit [1] by documenting qcom,pm8018-pwrkey and adding the entry
> in the drivers/input/misc/pmic8xxx-pwrkey.c driver.
> 
> Or maybe I missed something.
> 
> [1] https://www.slideshare.net/superna/elce-2016-neil-armstrong-no-its-never-too-late-to-upstream-your-legacy-linux-based-platform
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1466759887-25394-3-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com/

So let's repeat again: the patch [2] looks wrong. The qcom,pm8018-pwrkey
and qcom,pm8921-pwrkey are compatible.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Neil Armstrong]

On 29/09/2022 13:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 12:56, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> On 29/09/2022 11:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2022 10:29, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 28/09/2022 20:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>>> The PMIC is an PM8018, but was compatible with the PM8921. Both compatibles
>>>>>> was left but it makes no sense anymore the leave both.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? It makes sense for backwards compatibility. If you think it does
>>>>> not make sense, please say why.
>>>>
>>>> We had the same debate at submission 7y ago, some of the pm8018 new compatible
>>>> were rejected in bindings & drivers so I left both...
>>>>
>>>> As of today only the pwrkey bindings is missing, so should I resubmit the pm8018-pwrkey bidings and
>>>> drop the pm8921-pwrkey compatible ?
>>>
>>> ~7 years ago here:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20160624220748.GB11719@dtor-ws/
>>> you proposed to add something entirely different than we have here now
>>> and than we talk about.
>>>
>>> In that thread you correctly wrote:
>>> "My point of view is that the devicetree describes the hardware and need
>>> to have SoC specific compatible string since it describes the actual
>>> silicon, and drivers must make sure to handle all the SoC or family
>>> variants using the compatible string and the match data."
>>
>> And I'm happy this is still the policy! And I'm tried my best to follow this
>> in all my DT & bindings submissions, while DT-Schema helped a lot here.
>>
>>>
>>> but implemented it entirely different. Maybe you refer to different mail
>>> thread, I don't know, but that one is indeed wrong.
>>
>> In the meantime things got much better, but at that time pushing a SoC bringup
>> was a pain (I did 2 at the time, the other one is the OX810SE) and I even
>> mentioned it in a talk ([1] slides 27 to 30).
>>
>> So I added both to be sure that at some point a driver would probe against
>> one of the compatible entries...
>>
>>>
>>> The DTS looks correct unless you have some real argument that it is not.
>>>
>>> How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
>>> document proper compatibles.
>>
>> What do you mean ? There's no point to keep the PM8921 compatibles, the gpio
> 
> I asked at beginning - why? Why there is no point to keep them?

Because the HW is an PM8018 and the addition of the PM8921 was for policy/organization/struggling-to-make-dt-merged-before-clear-dt-policy/...
so you say I should modify the Bindings to reflect the actual "pm8018", "pm8921" situation instead of changing the DT even if incorrect ?

> 
>> and PMIC bindings already enforces to only have the PM8018 compatible.
> 
> That is just partial argument because binding does not match DTS. So
> something is not correct. Why do you assume bindings are correct?

Because bindings accurately reflects HW and DT doesn't.

> 
>>
>> The only issue is about the PM8018 pwrkey, where the solution would be
>> to actually re-submit [1] by documenting qcom,pm8018-pwrkey and adding the entry
>> in the drivers/input/misc/pmic8xxx-pwrkey.c driver.
>>
>> Or maybe I missed something.
>>
>> [1] https://www.slideshare.net/superna/elce-2016-neil-armstrong-no-its-never-too-late-to-upstream-your-legacy-linux-based-platform
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1466759887-25394-3-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com/
> 
> So let's repeat again: the patch [2] looks wrong. The qcom,pm8018-pwrkey
> and qcom,pm8921-pwrkey are compatible.

Ok, I need time to understand, I'm highly confused now.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/09/2022 13:39, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> The DTS looks correct unless you have some real argument that it is not.
>>>>
>>>> How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
>>>> document proper compatibles.
>>>
>>> What do you mean ? There's no point to keep the PM8921 compatibles, the gpio
>>
>> I asked at beginning - why? Why there is no point to keep them?
> 
> Because the HW is an PM8018 and the addition of the PM8921 was for policy/organization/struggling-to-make-dt-merged-before-clear-dt-policy/...
> so you say I should modify the Bindings to reflect the actual "pm8018", "pm8921" situation instead of changing the DT even if incorrect ?

Yes, this is what I already wrote:

"How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
document proper compatibles."

>>> and PMIC bindings already enforces to only have the PM8018 compatible.
>>
>> That is just partial argument because binding does not match DTS. So
>> something is not correct. Why do you assume bindings are correct?
> 
> Because bindings accurately reflects HW and DT doesn't.

That's not really an answer... Bindings are correct because they are
correct? What is exactly correct in the bindings? How they reflect the
HW in a proper way, while DTS does not?

Or let's focus on actual hardware - what are the properties of the
hardware which indicate that DTS is wrong?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Neil Armstrong]

On 29/09/2022 13:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 13:39, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> The DTS looks correct unless you have some real argument that it is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
>>>>> document proper compatibles.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean ? There's no point to keep the PM8921 compatibles, the gpio
>>>
>>> I asked at beginning - why? Why there is no point to keep them?
>>
>> Because the HW is an PM8018 and the addition of the PM8921 was for policy/organization/struggling-to-make-dt-merged-before-clear-dt-policy/...
>> so you say I should modify the Bindings to reflect the actual "pm8018", "pm8921" situation instead of changing the DT even if incorrect ?
> 
> Yes, this is what I already wrote:
> 
> "How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
> document proper compatibles."
> 
>>>> and PMIC bindings already enforces to only have the PM8018 compatible.
>>>
>>> That is just partial argument because binding does not match DTS. So
>>> something is not correct. Why do you assume bindings are correct?
>>
>> Because bindings accurately reflects HW and DT doesn't.
> 
> That's not really an answer... Bindings are correct because they are
> correct? What is exactly correct in the bindings? How they reflect the
> HW in a proper way, while DTS does not?
> 
> Or let's focus on actual hardware - what are the properties of the
> hardware which indicate that DTS is wrong?

The actual PMIC is an PM8018

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Neil

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/09/2022 13:59, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> That's not really an answer... Bindings are correct because they are
>> correct? What is exactly correct in the bindings? How they reflect the
>> HW in a proper way, while DTS does not?
>>
>> Or let's focus on actual hardware - what are the properties of the
>> hardware which indicate that DTS is wrong?
> 
> The actual PMIC is an PM8018

And DTS is saying PMIC is PM8018, isn't it? I see clearly in DTS:
qcom,pm8018
qcom,pm8018-rtc
qcom,pm8018-pwrkey
qcom,pm8018-gpio

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Neil Armstrong]

On 29/09/2022 14:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 13:59, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> That's not really an answer... Bindings are correct because they are
>>> correct? What is exactly correct in the bindings? How they reflect the
>>> HW in a proper way, while DTS does not?
>>>
>>> Or let's focus on actual hardware - what are the properties of the
>>> hardware which indicate that DTS is wrong?
>>
>> The actual PMIC is an PM8018
> 
> And DTS is saying PMIC is PM8018, isn't it? I see clearly in DTS:
> qcom,pm8018
> qcom,pm8018-rtc
> qcom,pm8018-pwrkey
> qcom,pm8018-gpio

And this is why I pushed the removal of qcom,pm8921* fallback compatibles,
except for qcom,pm8018-pwrkey because I didn't managed to get it documented at the time.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/09/2022 14:21, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 14:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 29/09/2022 13:59, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> That's not really an answer... Bindings are correct because they are
>>>> correct? What is exactly correct in the bindings? How they reflect the
>>>> HW in a proper way, while DTS does not?
>>>>
>>>> Or let's focus on actual hardware - what are the properties of the
>>>> hardware which indicate that DTS is wrong?
>>>
>>> The actual PMIC is an PM8018
>>
>> And DTS is saying PMIC is PM8018, isn't it? I see clearly in DTS:
>> qcom,pm8018
>> qcom,pm8018-rtc
>> qcom,pm8018-pwrkey
>> qcom,pm8018-gpio
> 
> And this is why I pushed the removal of qcom,pm8921* fallback compatibles,
> except for qcom,pm8018-pwrkey because I didn't managed to get it documented at the time.

This does not explain at all why you wanted to remove any other
compatibles. There is no connection, relation between these.

We are making circles and discussion takes too much. I asked to bring
the arguments about hardware that point devices are not compatible. You
just said "PMIC is an PM8018", and that's it. Nothing more, nothing
about hardware. Based on that you want to remove compatibility. This is
not valid argument. It's unrelated.

You could as well say "The actual PMIC is Qualcomm PMIC" and you would
be right. Still not an argument.

Based on lack of arguments in this entire discussion, the patch itself
is not correct. Use the approach I wrote some time ago and quoted one
more time.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Neil Armstrong]

Hi,

On 29/09/2022 14:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> We are making circles and discussion takes too much. 

I'm sorry this happens, but I really want solve this stuff which in suspend since 2015.

So let me recall the original issue:

DTBS check reports:

arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb: pmic@0: compatible: ['qcom,pm8018', 'qcom,pm8921'] is too long
         From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml

arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb: pmic@0: rtc@11d:compatible: ['qcom,pm8018-rtc', 'qcom,pm8921-rtc'] is too long
         From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml

arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb:0:0: /soc/qcom,ssbi@500000/pmic@0/pwrkey@1c: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['qcom,pm8018-pwrkey', 'qcom,pm8921-pwrkey']

arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb:0:0: /soc/qcom,ssbi@500000/pmic@0/pwrkey@1c: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['qcom,pm8018-pwrkey', 'qcom,pm8921-pwrkey']

arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb: rtc@11d: compatible: ['qcom,pm8018-rtc', 'qcom,pm8921-rtc'] is too long
         From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/qcom-pm8xxx-rtc.yaml

So trying to solve those, and since the PMIC in the wp8548 module is a PM8018, and it happens to be (partially ?? potentially ??) compatible
with the PM8921, and I had issues adding per-HW compatible for the pwrkey, the obvious solution would be to
drop the PM8921 compatibility since it's only probable and nothing proves it's right.

But what's sure: it's a PM8018 PMIC.

But since the PM8018 PWRKEY interface is compatible with the PM8921 PWRKEY interface,
it's perfectly ok to the the MP8921 compatible here.

OK, so as you quoted multiple times:
"How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
document proper compatibles."

OK so there's no bogus entries to remove here, and the only compatible to
potentially document is the pm8018-pwrkey but it seems to be wrong.

I'll be happy to have an hint on how to handle that to I can go forward and
stop the noise, there's still plenty of stuff to fix in the MDM9615 DT.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Thanks,
Neil

Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid pmic subnodes compatibles

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/09/2022 14:48, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 29/09/2022 14:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> We are making circles and discussion takes too much. 
> 
> I'm sorry this happens, but I really want solve this stuff which in suspend since 2015.
> 
> So let me recall the original issue:
> 
> DTBS check reports:
> 
> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb: pmic@0: compatible: ['qcom,pm8018', 'qcom,pm8921'] is too long
>          From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml
> 
> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb: pmic@0: rtc@11d:compatible: ['qcom,pm8018-rtc', 'qcom,pm8921-rtc'] is too long
>          From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.yaml
> 
> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb:0:0: /soc/qcom,ssbi@500000/pmic@0/pwrkey@1c: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['qcom,pm8018-pwrkey', 'qcom,pm8921-pwrkey']
> 
> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb:0:0: /soc/qcom,ssbi@500000/pmic@0/pwrkey@1c: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['qcom,pm8018-pwrkey', 'qcom,pm8921-pwrkey']
> 
> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615-wp8548-mangoh-green.dtb: rtc@11d: compatible: ['qcom,pm8018-rtc', 'qcom,pm8921-rtc'] is too long
>          From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/qcom-pm8xxx-rtc.yaml
> 
> So trying to solve those, and since the PMIC in the wp8548 module is a PM8018, and it happens to be (partially ?? potentially ??) compatible
> with the PM8921, and I had issues adding per-HW compatible for the pwrkey, the obvious solution would be to
> drop the PM8921 compatibility since it's only probable and nothing proves it's right.

Although it is obvious solution it is also affecting all out-of-tree
users of DTS.

> 
> But what's sure: it's a PM8018 PMIC.

I could not find the spec for both of these, but similar numbers have
for example exactly the same RTC. I guess other blocks are also the same.

> 
> But since the PM8018 PWRKEY interface is compatible with the PM8921 PWRKEY interface,
> it's perfectly ok to the the MP8921 compatible here.
> 
> OK, so as you quoted multiple times:
> "How this should be fixed? First, drop bogus entries from drivers, then
> document proper compatibles."
> 
> OK so there's no bogus entries to remove here, and the only compatible to
> potentially document is the pm8018-pwrkey but it seems to be wrong.

All the entries in drivers which are duplicating the fallback are not
needed. I called them bogus because adding them brought no meaning.

> I'll be happy to have an hint on how to handle that to I can go forward and
> stop the noise, there's still plenty of stuff to fix in the MDM9615 DT.

Drop the unneeded entries from the driver, document (properly) the
compatible how it is used in DTS (so not in some other way than DTS
expresses it).

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH v1 6/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove invalid interrupt-names from pl18x mmc nodes

[Neil Armstrong]

This solves the 'interrupt-names' was unexpected dtbs check error.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
index 935f7b222200..d8723bd3fedb 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
@@ -325,7 +325,6 @@ sdcc1: mmc@12180000 {
 				arm,primecell-periphid = <0x00051180>;
 				reg = <0x12180000 0x2000>;
 				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 104 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
-				interrupt-names = "cmd_irq";
 				clocks = <&gcc SDC1_CLK>, <&gcc SDC1_H_CLK>;
 				clock-names = "mclk", "apb_pclk";
 				bus-width = <8>;
@@ -345,7 +344,6 @@ sdcc2: mmc@12140000 {
 				status = "disabled";
 				reg = <0x12140000 0x2000>;
 				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 103 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
-				interrupt-names = "cmd_irq";
 				clocks = <&gcc SDC2_CLK>, <&gcc SDC2_H_CLK>;
 				clock-names = "mclk", "apb_pclk";
 				bus-width = <4>;

-- 
b4 0.10.0

[PATCH v1 7/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove useless amba subnode

[Neil Armstrong]

Since amba node type has been deprecated, remove this subnode and
move the mmc nodes in the main soc node.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
index d8723bd3fedb..1db822db7702 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-mdm9615.dtsi
@@ -314,49 +314,43 @@ sdcc2bam: dma-controller@12142000{
 			qcom,ee = <0>;
 		};
 
-		amba {
-			compatible = "simple-bus";
-			#address-cells = <1>;
-			#size-cells = <1>;
-			ranges;
-			sdcc1: mmc@12180000 {
-				status = "disabled";
-				compatible = "arm,pl18x", "arm,primecell";
-				arm,primecell-periphid = <0x00051180>;
-				reg = <0x12180000 0x2000>;
-				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 104 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
-				clocks = <&gcc SDC1_CLK>, <&gcc SDC1_H_CLK>;
-				clock-names = "mclk", "apb_pclk";
-				bus-width = <8>;
-				max-frequency = <48000000>;
-				cap-sd-highspeed;
-				cap-mmc-highspeed;
-				vmmc-supply = <&vsdcc_fixed>;
-				dmas = <&sdcc1bam 2>, <&sdcc1bam 1>;
-				dma-names = "tx", "rx";
-				assigned-clocks = <&gcc SDC1_CLK>;
-				assigned-clock-rates = <400000>;
-			};
+		sdcc1: mmc@12180000 {
+			status = "disabled";
+			compatible = "arm,pl18x", "arm,primecell";
+			arm,primecell-periphid = <0x00051180>;
+			reg = <0x12180000 0x2000>;
+			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 104 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+			clocks = <&gcc SDC1_CLK>, <&gcc SDC1_H_CLK>;
+			clock-names = "mclk", "apb_pclk";
+			bus-width = <8>;
+			max-frequency = <48000000>;
+			cap-sd-highspeed;
+			cap-mmc-highspeed;
+			vmmc-supply = <&vsdcc_fixed>;
+			dmas = <&sdcc1bam 2>, <&sdcc1bam 1>;
+			dma-names = "tx", "rx";
+			assigned-clocks = <&gcc SDC1_CLK>;
+			assigned-clock-rates = <400000>;
+		};
 
-			sdcc2: mmc@12140000 {
-				compatible = "arm,pl18x", "arm,primecell";
-				arm,primecell-periphid = <0x00051180>;
-				status = "disabled";
-				reg = <0x12140000 0x2000>;
-				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 103 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
-				clocks = <&gcc SDC2_CLK>, <&gcc SDC2_H_CLK>;
-				clock-names = "mclk", "apb_pclk";
-				bus-width = <4>;
-				cap-sd-highspeed;
-				cap-mmc-highspeed;
-				max-frequency = <48000000>;
-				no-1-8-v;
-				vmmc-supply = <&vsdcc_fixed>;
-				dmas = <&sdcc2bam 2>, <&sdcc2bam 1>;
-				dma-names = "tx", "rx";
-				assigned-clocks = <&gcc SDC2_CLK>;
-				assigned-clock-rates = <400000>;
-			};
+		sdcc2: mmc@12140000 {
+			compatible = "arm,pl18x", "arm,primecell";
+			arm,primecell-periphid = <0x00051180>;
+			status = "disabled";
+			reg = <0x12140000 0x2000>;
+			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 103 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+			clocks = <&gcc SDC2_CLK>, <&gcc SDC2_H_CLK>;
+			clock-names = "mclk", "apb_pclk";
+			bus-width = <4>;
+			cap-sd-highspeed;
+			cap-mmc-highspeed;
+			max-frequency = <48000000>;
+			no-1-8-v;
+			vmmc-supply = <&vsdcc_fixed>;
+			dmas = <&sdcc2bam 2>, <&sdcc2bam 1>;
+			dma-names = "tx", "rx";
+			assigned-clocks = <&gcc SDC2_CLK>;
+			assigned-clock-rates = <400000>;
 		};
 
 		tcsr: syscon@1a400000 {

-- 
b4 0.10.0

Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove useless amba subnode

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> Since amba node type has been deprecated, remove this subnode and

How device node can be deprecated? simple-bus is still supported, isn't it?


> move the mmc nodes in the main soc node.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>

While reshuffling maybe move properties to match common style:
1. compatible
2. reg
3. ...
4. status (last)

> 
Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove useless amba subnode

[Neil Armstrong]

On 28/09/2022 20:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
 > On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
 >> Since amba node type has been deprecated, remove this subnode and
 >
 > How device node can be deprecated? simple-bus is still supported, isn't it?
The amba subnode remained after the amba compatible was changed to simple-bus, there's no need for such subnode anymore.

 >
 >
 >> move the mmc nodes in the main soc node.
 >>
 >> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
 >
 > While reshuffling maybe move properties to match common style:
 > 1. compatible
 > 2. reg
 > 3. ...
 > 4. status (last)
Ack, will do.

 >
 >>
 > Best regards,
 > Krzysztof
 >
Thanks,
Neil

Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove useless amba subnode

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/09/2022 10:19, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 20:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>  > On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>  >> Since amba node type has been deprecated, remove this subnode and
>  >
>  > How device node can be deprecated? simple-bus is still supported, isn't it?
> The amba subnode remained after the amba compatible was changed to simple-bus, there's no need for such subnode anymore.

OK, but it is quite different than a node type being deprecated.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] arm: dts: qcom: mdm9615: remove useless amba subnode

[Neil Armstrong]

On 29/09/2022 11:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 10:19, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> On 28/09/2022 20:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>   > On 28/09/2022 11:14, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>   >> Since amba node type has been deprecated, remove this subnode and
>>   >
>>   > How device node can be deprecated? simple-bus is still supported, isn't it?
>> The amba subnode remained after the amba compatible was changed to simple-bus, there's no need for such subnode anymore.
> 
> OK, but it is quite different than a node type being deprecated.

Well it's still related, it's because of the deprecation we have a now useless subnode,
anyway will re-word for v2.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

Thanks,
Neil