[PATCH v6 08/30] dt-bindings: soc: fsl: cpm_qe: cpm1-scc-qmc: Add support for QMC HDLC

Krzysztof Kozlowski krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org
Wed Sep 27 06:59:14 AEST 2023

On 25/09/2023 15:50, Herve Codina wrote:
>>>>> With these details, do you still think I need to change the child (channel)
>>>>> compatible ?    
>>>> From OS point of view, you have a driver binding to this child-level
>>>> compatible. How do you enforce Linux driver binding based on parent
>>>> compatible? I looked at your next patch and I did not see it.  
>>> We do not need to have the child driver binding based on parent.  
>> Exactly, that's what I said.
>>> We have to ensure that the child handles a QMC channel and the parent provides
>>> a QMC channel.
>>> A QMC controller (parent) has to implement the QMC API (include/soc/fsl/qe/qmc.h)
>>> and a QMC channel driver (child) has to use the QMC API.  
>> How does this solve my concerns? Sorry, I do not understand. Your driver
>> is a platform driver and binds to the generic compatible. How do you
>> solve regular compatibility issues (need for quirks) if parent
>> compatible is not used?
>> How does being QMC compliant affects driver binding and
>> compatibility/quirks?
>> We are back to my original question and I don't think you answered to
>> any of the concerns.
> Well, to be sure that I understand correctly, do you mean that I should
> provide a compatible for the child (HDLC) with something like this:
> --- 8< ---
>   compatible:
>     items:
>       - enum:
>           - fsl,mpc885-qmc-hdlc
>           - fsl,mpc866-qmc-hdlc
>       - const: fsl,cpm1-qmc-hdlc
>       - const: fsl,qmc-hdlc
> --- 8< ---

Yes, more or less, depending on actual compatibility and SoC-family.
Maybe "fsl,cpm1-qmc-hdlc" item in the middle is not needed.

> If so, I didn't do that because a QMC channel consumer (driver matching
> fsl,qmc-hdlc) doesn't contains any SoC specific part.

Just like hundreds of other drivers. :)

There is a paragraph about specific compatibles here:

> It uses the channel as a communication channel to send/receive HDLC frames
> to/from this communication channel.
> All the specific SoC part is handled by the QMC controller (parent) itself and
> not by any consumer (child).

OK, so you guarantee in 100% for this hardware and all future (including
designs unknown currently), that they will be 100% compatible with
existing QMC channel consumer (child, matching fsl,qmc-hdlc) driver,
thus there will be no need for any quirk. Specifically, there will be no
chances that it would be reasonable to re-use the same driver for child
(currently fsl,qmc-hdlc) in different parent.

P.S. If you received this email twice, apologies, I have here troubles
with internet.

Best regards,

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list