Re: [GIT PULL 1/6] samsung: soc: drivers: for v5.17

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/12/2021 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:54 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Samsung SoC drivers changes for v5.17
>>
>> 1. Exynos ChipID: add Exynos7885 support.
>> 2. Exynos PMU: add Exynos850 support.
>> 3. Minor bindings cleanup.
>> 4. Add Exynos USIv2 (Universal Serial Interface) driver. The USI block is
>>    a shared IP block between I2C, UART/serial and SPI. Basically one has
>>    to choose which feature the USI block will support and later the
>>    regular I2C/serial/SPI driver will bind and work.
>>    This merges also one commit with dt-binding headers from my dts64
>>    pull request.
>>
>>    Together with a future serial driver change, this will break the ABI.
>>
>>    Affected: Serial on ExynosAutov9 SADK and out-of-tree ExynosAutov9 boards
>>
>>    Why: To properly and efficiently support the USI with new hierarchy
>>    of USI-{serial,SPI,I2C} devicetree nodes.
>>
>>    Rationale:
>>    Recently added serial and USI support was short-sighted and did not
>>    allow to smooth support of other features (SPI and I2C). Adding
>>    support for USI-SPI and USI-I2C would effect in code duplication.
>>    Adding support for different USI versions (currently supported is
>>    USIv2 but support for v1 is planned) would cause even more code
>>    duplication and create a solution difficult to maintain.
>>    Since USI-serial and ExynosAutov9 have been added recently, are
>>    considered fresh development features and there are no supported
>>    products using them, the code/solution is being refactored in
>>    non-backwards compatible way.  The compatibility is not broken yet.
>>    It will be when serial driver changes are accepted.
>>    The ABI break was discussed with only known users of ExynosAutov9 and
>>    received their permission.
> 
> Thanks a lot for the detailed description, very helpful!
> 
> I've applied pull requests 1 through 4, though it seems that once more
> the automated emails did not go out.
> 
> I can't find the two defconfig patches you mentioned in the introductory
> mail, neither in patchwork nor in my inbox, I assume these were
> numbered 5/6 and 6/6?
> 

Yes, these were patches 5/6 and 6/6 but maybe I made mistakes in address
list. Let me resend them now.


Best regards,
Krzysztof