[1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document oneplus,bacon device

  Document the OnePlus One ("bacon") which is a smartphone based on the
Snapdragon 801 SoC.

Also allow msm8974 devices to use qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id.

Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
  

On 27/11/2022 19:18, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Document the OnePlus One ("bacon") which is a smartphone based on the
> Snapdragon 801 SoC.
> 
> Also allow msm8974 devices to use qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> index 463509f0f23a..3d2cc8ae34d8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ properties:
>            - enum:
>                - fairphone,fp2
>                - lge,hammerhead
> +              - oneplus,bacon
>                - samsung,klte
>                - sony,xperia-amami
>                - sony,xperia-castor
> @@ -896,6 +897,7 @@ allOf:
>                - qcom,apq8026
>                - qcom,apq8094
>                - qcom,apq8096
> +              - qcom,msm8974

Someone will have to rebase:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20221104172122.252761-4-angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com/

Patch is good:

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

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 at 20:19, Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz> wrote:
>
> Document the OnePlus One ("bacon") which is a smartphone based on the
> Snapdragon 801 SoC.
>
> Also allow msm8974 devices to use qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id.

The patch itself is good. However it raised a broader question for me.
Up to now all msm8974pro devices use qcom,msm8974 as a top-level
compatibility string. Should it be changed to use pro-specific one
(e.g. qcom,msm8974pro)?

For the patch itself:

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>

>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> index 463509f0f23a..3d2cc8ae34d8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ properties:
>            - enum:
>                - fairphone,fp2
>                - lge,hammerhead
> +              - oneplus,bacon
>                - samsung,klte
>                - sony,xperia-amami
>                - sony,xperia-castor
> @@ -896,6 +897,7 @@ allOf:
>                - qcom,apq8026
>                - qcom,apq8094
>                - qcom,apq8096
> +              - qcom,msm8974
>                - qcom,msm8992
>                - qcom,msm8994
>                - qcom,msm8996
> --
> 2.38.1
>
  

On 27/11/2022 22:25, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 at 20:19, Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> Document the OnePlus One ("bacon") which is a smartphone based on the
>> Snapdragon 801 SoC.
>>
>> Also allow msm8974 devices to use qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id.
> 
> The patch itself is good. However it raised a broader question for me.
> Up to now all msm8974pro devices use qcom,msm8974 as a top-level
> compatibility string. Should it be changed to use pro-specific one
> (e.g. qcom,msm8974pro)?

Yes, makes sense.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 at 23:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 27/11/2022 22:25, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 at 20:19, Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz> wrote:
> >>
> >> Document the OnePlus One ("bacon") which is a smartphone based on the
> >> Snapdragon 801 SoC.
> >>
> >> Also allow msm8974 devices to use qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id.
> >
> > The patch itself is good. However it raised a broader question for me.
> > Up to now all msm8974pro devices use qcom,msm8974 as a top-level
> > compatibility string. Should it be changed to use pro-specific one
> > (e.g. qcom,msm8974pro)?
>
> Yes, makes sense.

Would you make the patch?
  

On 27/11/2022 22:43, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 at 23:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 27/11/2022 22:25, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 at 20:19, Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Document the OnePlus One ("bacon") which is a smartphone based on the
>>>> Snapdragon 801 SoC.
>>>>
>>>> Also allow msm8974 devices to use qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id.
>>>
>>> The patch itself is good. However it raised a broader question for me.
>>> Up to now all msm8974pro devices use qcom,msm8974 as a top-level
>>> compatibility string. Should it be changed to use pro-specific one
>>> (e.g. qcom,msm8974pro)?
>>
>> Yes, makes sense.
> 
> Would you make the patch?

I do not plan to. I don't know which ones are Pro which aren't.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 at 10:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 27/11/2022 22:43, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 at 23:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 27/11/2022 22:25, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 at 20:19, Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Document the OnePlus One ("bacon") which is a smartphone based on the
> >>>> Snapdragon 801 SoC.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also allow msm8974 devices to use qcom,msm-id and qcom,board-id.
> >>>
> >>> The patch itself is good. However it raised a broader question for me.
> >>> Up to now all msm8974pro devices use qcom,msm8974 as a top-level
> >>> compatibility string. Should it be changed to use pro-specific one
> >>> (e.g. qcom,msm8974pro)?
> >>
> >> Yes, makes sense.
> >
> > Would you make the patch?
>
> I do not plan to. I don't know which ones are Pro which aren't.

Ack, I'll do it then.