dt-bindings: arm: qcom: add board-id/msm-id for MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250

  Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
devices using modified qcom,board-id field.

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
  

On 2022-12-14 16:06:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>

> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> index d45e2129fce3..cfb7f5caf606 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> @@ -925,15 +925,18 @@ allOf:
>                - qcom,apq8026
>                - qcom,apq8094
>                - qcom,apq8096
> +              - qcom,msm8956

I am certain this (and msm8976) were added in [1] but it somehow got
lost when that was merged as 05c0c38dc752 ("dt-bindings: arm: qcom:
Document msm8956 and msm8976 SoC and devices")?

Should we also add qcom,msm8976 or only when a user for that board is
added?

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221111120156.48040-9-angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com/

>                - qcom,msm8992
>                - qcom,msm8994
>                - qcom,msm8996
>                - qcom,msm8998
>                - qcom,sdm630
>                - qcom,sdm632
> +              - qcom,sdm636
>                - qcom,sdm845
>                - qcom,sdx55
>                - qcom,sdx65
> +              - qcom,sm4250

qcom,sm6115 could be added as well unless you rather leave that to the
person(s) adding the board compatible later on.

- Marijn

>                - qcom,sm6125
>                - qcom,sm6350
>                - qcom,sm7225
> @@ -957,6 +960,8 @@ allOf:
>                - oneplus,dumpling
>                - oneplus,enchilada
>                - oneplus,fajita
> +              - oneplus,oneplus3
> +              - oneplus,oneplus3t
>      then:
>        properties:
>          qcom,board-id:
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>
  

On 14/12/2022 16:29, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-12-14 16:06:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
>> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
>> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> 
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>> index d45e2129fce3..cfb7f5caf606 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>> @@ -925,15 +925,18 @@ allOf:
>>                - qcom,apq8026
>>                - qcom,apq8094
>>                - qcom,apq8096
>> +              - qcom,msm8956
> 
> I am certain this (and msm8976) were added in [1] but it somehow got
> lost when that was merged as 05c0c38dc752 ("dt-bindings: arm: qcom:
> Document msm8956 and msm8976 SoC and devices")?
> 
> Should we also add qcom,msm8976 or only when a user for that board is
> added?

Bjorn,
You need to fix your scripts. It's not the first time when applied patch
is changed and its pieces are gone.

This is patchwork:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/20221111120156.48040-9-angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com/

This is git:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/commit/?h=arm64-for-6.2&id=05c0c38dc752eb9244e53d72ce1030f36153daf8

Two different patches.


> 
>>                - qcom,msm8992
>>                - qcom,msm8994
>>                - qcom,msm8996
>>                - qcom,msm8998
>>                - qcom,sdm630
>>                - qcom,sdm632
>> +              - qcom,sdm636
>>                - qcom,sdm845
>>                - qcom,sdx55
>>                - qcom,sdx65
>> +              - qcom,sm4250
> 
> qcom,sm6115 could be added as well unless you rather leave that to the
> person(s) adding the board compatible later on.

There is no board, I think, so I did not add compatible.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

On 2022-12-14 17:45:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/12/2022 16:29, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2022-12-14 16:06:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
> >> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
> >> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> > 
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
> >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> >> index d45e2129fce3..cfb7f5caf606 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> >> @@ -925,15 +925,18 @@ allOf:
> >>                - qcom,apq8026
> >>                - qcom,apq8094
> >>                - qcom,apq8096
> >> +              - qcom,msm8956
> > 
> > I am certain this (and msm8976) were added in [1] but it somehow got
> > lost when that was merged as 05c0c38dc752 ("dt-bindings: arm: qcom:
> > Document msm8956 and msm8976 SoC and devices")?
> > 
> > Should we also add qcom,msm8976 or only when a user for that board is
> > added?
> 
> Bjorn,
> You need to fix your scripts. It's not the first time when applied patch
> is changed and its pieces are gone.

That is quite unfortunate, and it had me puzzled for a second...

> >>                - qcom,msm8992
> >>                - qcom,msm8994
> >>                - qcom,msm8996
> >>                - qcom,msm8998
> >>                - qcom,sdm630
> >>                - qcom,sdm632
> >> +              - qcom,sdm636
> >>                - qcom,sdm845
> >>                - qcom,sdx55
> >>                - qcom,sdx65
> >> +              - qcom,sm4250
> > 
> > qcom,sm6115 could be added as well unless you rather leave that to the
> > person(s) adding the board compatible later on.
> 
> There is no board, I think, so I did not add compatible.

Correct, it's still in progress before being uptreamed.  Given that
Konrad already has patches to add the names here when he does, it makes
sense to leave this.

- Marijn
  

On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:06:05 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
  

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 05:45:49PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/12/2022 16:29, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2022-12-14 16:06:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
> >> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
> >> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> > 
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
> >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> >> index d45e2129fce3..cfb7f5caf606 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> >> @@ -925,15 +925,18 @@ allOf:
> >>                - qcom,apq8026
> >>                - qcom,apq8094
> >>                - qcom,apq8096
> >> +              - qcom,msm8956
> > 
> > I am certain this (and msm8976) were added in [1] but it somehow got
> > lost when that was merged as 05c0c38dc752 ("dt-bindings: arm: qcom:
> > Document msm8956 and msm8976 SoC and devices")?
> > 
> > Should we also add qcom,msm8976 or only when a user for that board is
> > added?
> 
> Bjorn,
> You need to fix your scripts. It's not the first time when applied patch
> is changed and its pieces are gone.
> 

I don't have any script that automagically solves merge conflicts, so if
you prefer to avoid the occasional mistake I can start reject your
patches as soon as they don't apply 100% cleanly.

Regards,
Bjorn

> This is patchwork:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/20221111120156.48040-9-angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com/
> 
> This is git:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/commit/?h=arm64-for-6.2&id=05c0c38dc752eb9244e53d72ce1030f36153daf8
> 
> Two different patches.
> 
> 
> > 
> >>                - qcom,msm8992
> >>                - qcom,msm8994
> >>                - qcom,msm8996
> >>                - qcom,msm8998
> >>                - qcom,sdm630
> >>                - qcom,sdm632
> >> +              - qcom,sdm636
> >>                - qcom,sdm845
> >>                - qcom,sdx55
> >>                - qcom,sdx65
> >> +              - qcom,sm4250
> > 
> > qcom,sm6115 could be added as well unless you rather leave that to the
> > person(s) adding the board compatible later on.
> 
> There is no board, I think, so I did not add compatible.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
  

On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:06:05 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
> 
> 

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: add board-id/msm-id for MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250
      commit: 47c6315ea64de35aaa738e8d647a4359ede202e8

Best regards,
  

On 11/01/2023 05:30, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 05:45:49PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 14/12/2022 16:29, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-14 16:06:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
>>>> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
>>>> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> index d45e2129fce3..cfb7f5caf606 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> @@ -925,15 +925,18 @@ allOf:
>>>>                - qcom,apq8026
>>>>                - qcom,apq8094
>>>>                - qcom,apq8096
>>>> +              - qcom,msm8956
>>>
>>> I am certain this (and msm8976) were added in [1] but it somehow got
>>> lost when that was merged as 05c0c38dc752 ("dt-bindings: arm: qcom:
>>> Document msm8956 and msm8976 SoC and devices")?
>>>
>>> Should we also add qcom,msm8976 or only when a user for that board is
>>> added?
>>
>> Bjorn,
>> You need to fix your scripts. It's not the first time when applied patch
>> is changed and its pieces are gone.
>>
> 
> I don't have any script that automagically solves merge conflicts, so if
> you prefer to avoid the occasional mistake I can start reject your
> patches as soon as they don't apply 100% cleanly.

I vote for this (unless for really trivial cases). The submitter should
know better how to resolve the conflict (through rebase) than you.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

On 2023-01-10 22:30:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 05:45:49PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 14/12/2022 16:29, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > On 2022-12-14 16:06:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
> > >> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
> > >> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> > > 
> > >> ---
> > >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
> > >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > >> index d45e2129fce3..cfb7f5caf606 100644
> > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > >> @@ -925,15 +925,18 @@ allOf:
> > >>                - qcom,apq8026
> > >>                - qcom,apq8094
> > >>                - qcom,apq8096
> > >> +              - qcom,msm8956
> > > 
> > > I am certain this (and msm8976) were added in [1] but it somehow got
> > > lost when that was merged as 05c0c38dc752 ("dt-bindings: arm: qcom:
> > > Document msm8956 and msm8976 SoC and devices")?
> > > 
> > > Should we also add qcom,msm8976 or only when a user for that board is
> > > added?
> > 
> > Bjorn,
> > You need to fix your scripts. It's not the first time when applied patch
> > is changed and its pieces are gone.
> > 
> 
> I don't have any script that automagically solves merge conflicts, so if
> you prefer to avoid the occasional mistake I can start reject your
> patches as soon as they don't apply 100% cleanly.

Is this manual conflict resolution by you?  Git would/should only make
it disappear if it thinks that (part of) the patch has already been
applied, though I don't think those lines were added with the exact same
indentation elsewhere in the file.

There's also a mode that makes git reject the patch if the context (and
line numbers?) doesn't match up exactly, but that may cause more harm
than good.

- Marijn