Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: enable IPA in sc7280-herobrine-lte-sku.dtsi

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 5:01 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 04:45:52PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
>
> > Subject: arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: enable IPA in sc7280-herobrine-lte-sku.dtsi
>
> nit: that sounds as if IPA wasn't enabled previously. It would be
> clearer to say something like: "sc7280: only enable IPA for boards
> with a modem".
>
> > IPA is only needed on a platform if it includes a modem, and not all
> > SC7280 SoC variants do.  The file "sc7280-herobrine-lte-sku.dtsi" is
> > used to encapsulate definitions related to Chrome OS SC7280 devices
> > where a modem is present, and that's the proper place for the IPA
> > node to be enabled.
> >
> > Currently IPA is enabled in "sc7280-idp.dtsi", which is included by
> > DTS files for Qualcomm reference platforms (all of which include the
> > modem).  That also includes "sc7280-herobrine-lte-sku.dtsi", so
> > enabling IPA there would make it unnecessary for "sc7280-idp.dtsi"
> > to enable it.
> >
> > The only other place IPA is enabled is "sc7280-qcard.dtsi".
> > That file is included only by "sc7280-herobrine.dtsi", which
> > is (eventually) included only by these top-level DTS files:
> >   sc7280-herobrine-crd.dts
> >   sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r1.dts
> >   sc7280-herobrine-evoker.dts
> >   sc7280-herobrine-evoker-lte.dts
> >   sc7280-herobrine-villager-r0.dts
> >   sc7280-herobrine-villager-r1.dts
> >   sc7280-herobrine-villager-r1-lte.dts
> > All of but two of these include "sc7280-herobrine-lte-sku.dtsi", and
> > for those cases, enabling IPA there means there is no need for it to
> > be enabled in "sc7280-qcard.dtsi".
> >
> > The two remaining cases will no longer enable IPA as a result of
> > this change:
> >   sc7280-herobrine-evoker.dts
> >   sc7280-herobrine-villager-r1.dts
> > Both of these have "lte" counterparts, and are meant to represent
> > board variants that do *not* have a modem.
> >
> > This is exactly the desired configuration.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

I'd agree that the subject like proposed by Matthias sounds better. In any case:

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>