Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: Add IDs for IPQ5018 family

[Robert Marko]

On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 11:51, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1.05.2023 23:22, Robert Marko wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 May 2023 at 14:51, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29.04.2023 21:33, Robert Marko wrote:
> >>> Add SOC IDs for the IPQ5018 family.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 8 ++++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> >>> index 802495b20276..c1283bad81e1 100644
> >>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> >>> @@ -216,6 +216,9 @@
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_SM8350                       439
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QCM2290                      441
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_SM6115                       444
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5010                      446
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5018                      447
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5028                      448
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_SC8280XP             449
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_IPQ6005                      453
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QRB5165                      455
> >>> @@ -229,6 +232,9 @@
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_SM8450_3             482
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_SC7280                       487
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_SC7180P                      495
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5000                      503
> >>
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ0509                      504
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ0518                      505
> >> Are you sure these names are in tact?
> >
> > Hi,
> > They should be correct, I am seeing them being used downstream
> > and in end products as well, IPQ0509 being one of those weird ones
> > that integrate 256MB of RAM on the die as well.
> Hmmm.. it's sketchy and weird-sounding, but also appealing in a way
>
> I got caught off-guard with the leading zeroes, but probably qcom
> just didn't want to mess with the IPQabcd scheme!

I would guess the same that they wanted to keep the naming scheme
intact, I also thought it was an error but then I found FCC images with
the IPQ0509 SoC being actually used.

Regards,
Robert
>
> Konrad
> >
> > Regards,
> > Robert
> >
> >>
> >> Konrad
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_SM6375                       507
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9514                      510
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9550                      511
> >>> @@ -236,6 +242,7 @@
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9570                      513
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9574                      514
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_SM8550                       519
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5016                      520
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9510                      521
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QRB4210                      523
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QRB2210                      524
> >>> @@ -243,6 +250,7 @@
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QRU1000                      539
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QDU1000                      545
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QDU1010                      587
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019                      569
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QRU1032                      588
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QRU1052                      589
> >>>  #define QCOM_ID_QRU1062                      590