SPI protocol runs on serial engine 4. Hence rename
spi0 pins to spi4 like spi0_cs to spi4_cs etc.
Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,ipq5424-tlmm.yaml | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,ipq5424-tlmm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,ipq5424-tlmm.yaml
index df284d3645c1..4e0be380caf6 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,ipq5424-tlmm.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,ipq5424-tlmm.yaml
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ $defs:
qdss_cti_trig_out_b0, qdss_cti_trig_in_b1, qdss_cti_trig_out_b1,
qdss_traceclk_a, qdss_tracectl_a, qdss_tracedata_a, qspi_clk,
qspi_cs, qspi_data, resout, rx0, rx1, rx2, sdc_clk, sdc_cmd,
- sdc_data, spi0_cs, spi0_clk, spi0_miso, spi0_mosi, spi1, spi10,
+ sdc_data, spi4_cs, spi4_clk, spi4_miso, spi4_mosi, spi1, spi10,
spi11, tsens_max, uart0, uart1, wci_txd, wci_rxd, wsi_clk, wsi_data ]
required:
--
2.34.1On 27/12/2024 08:24, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: > SPI protocol runs on serial engine 4. Hence rename > spi0 pins to spi4 like spi0_cs to spi4_cs etc. > > Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com> > --- <form letter> This is a friendly reminder during the review process. It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it. If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for tags received on the version they apply. Please read: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577 If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. </form letter> Best regards, Krzysztof
On 12/27/2024 1:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/12/2024 08:24, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >> SPI protocol runs on serial engine 4. Hence rename >> spi0 pins to spi4 like spi0_cs to spi4_cs etc. >> >> Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com> >> --- > > > <form letter> > This is a friendly reminder during the review process. > > It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it. > > If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: > Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions > of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed > significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is > "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing > list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost > patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for > tags received on the version they apply. > > Please read: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577 > > If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. > </form letter> > Hi Krzysztof, Patches #1 to #4 are newly added in V3 (to rename SPI0 to SPI4). Hence, there are no A-b/R-b tags associated with these patches. I mentioned this information in the cover letter. I assume you are referring to Patch #1 from the V2 series. Patch #1 [1] and #2 [2] from the V2 series have been merged into linux-next. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-2-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-3-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ Please let me know if i missed anything. Thanks & Regards, Manikanta.
On 27/12/2024 10:18, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: > > > On 12/27/2024 1:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 27/12/2024 08:24, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >>> SPI protocol runs on serial engine 4. Hence rename >>> spi0 pins to spi4 like spi0_cs to spi4_cs etc. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com> >>> --- >> >> >> <form letter> >> This is a friendly reminder during the review process. >> >> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it. >> >> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: >> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions >> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed >> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is >> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing >> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost >> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for >> tags received on the version they apply. >> >> Please read: >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577 >> >> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. >> </form letter> >> > > Hi Krzysztof, > > Patches #1 to #4 are newly added in V3 (to rename SPI0 to SPI4). Hence, there are no A-b/R-b > tags associated with these patches. I mentioned this information in the cover letter. > > I assume you are referring to Patch #1 from the V2 series. > Patch #1 [1] and #2 [2] from the V2 series have been merged into linux-next. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-2-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-3-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ > > Please let me know if i missed anything. v3 mislead me here and three different subsystems in one patchset. Anyway, if this is different patch then review follows - there is no ABI impact explanation and this is an ABI break. What's more, entries are not sorted anymore and why there is a gap? spi4, spi1 and spi10? Where is spi3? Not sure if this renaming is useful or correct, especially considering not many arguments in commit msg (e.g. datasheet?). Best regards, Krzysztof
On 12/27/2024 3:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/12/2024 10:18, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >> >> >> On 12/27/2024 1:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 27/12/2024 08:24, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >>>> SPI protocol runs on serial engine 4. Hence rename >>>> spi0 pins to spi4 like spi0_cs to spi4_cs etc. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>> >>> >>> <form letter> >>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process. >>> >>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it. >>> >>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: >>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions >>> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed >>> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is >>> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing >>> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost >>> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for >>> tags received on the version they apply. >>> >>> Please read: >>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577 >>> >>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. >>> </form letter> >>> >> >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> Patches #1 to #4 are newly added in V3 (to rename SPI0 to SPI4). Hence, there are no A-b/R-b >> tags associated with these patches. I mentioned this information in the cover letter. >> >> I assume you are referring to Patch #1 from the V2 series. >> Patch #1 [1] and #2 [2] from the V2 series have been merged into linux-next. >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-2-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-3-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ >> >> Please let me know if i missed anything. > > v3 mislead me here and three different subsystems in one patchset. > > Anyway, if this is different patch then review follows - there is no ABI > impact explanation and this is an ABI break. What's more, entries are > not sorted anymore and why there is a gap? spi4, spi1 and spi10? Where > is spi3? > > Not sure if this renaming is useful or correct, especially considering > not many arguments in commit msg (e.g. datasheet?). > > Hi Krzysztof, The IPQ5424 supports two SPI instances on serial engine 4 and 5. Previously, SPI clocks, gpio pins and DTS node names were named according to protocol instances like spi0 and spi1. As per the feedback received in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/ca0ecc07-fd45-4116-9927-8eb3e737505f@oss.qualcomm.com/, spi0 has been renamed to spi4 to align with the serial engine instance. Kindly advice if it's not acceptable. Thanks & Regards, Manikanta.
On 30/12/2024 08:50, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: > > > On 12/27/2024 3:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 27/12/2024 10:18, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/27/2024 1:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 27/12/2024 08:24, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >>>>> SPI protocol runs on serial engine 4. Hence rename >>>>> spi0 pins to spi4 like spi0_cs to spi4_cs etc. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> >>>> <form letter> >>>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process. >>>> >>>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it. >>>> >>>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: >>>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions >>>> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed >>>> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is >>>> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing >>>> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost >>>> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for >>>> tags received on the version they apply. >>>> >>>> Please read: >>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577 >>>> >>>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. >>>> </form letter> >>>> >>> >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> Patches #1 to #4 are newly added in V3 (to rename SPI0 to SPI4). Hence, there are no A-b/R-b >>> tags associated with these patches. I mentioned this information in the cover letter. >>> >>> I assume you are referring to Patch #1 from the V2 series. >>> Patch #1 [1] and #2 [2] from the V2 series have been merged into linux-next. >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-2-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ >>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-3-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ >>> >>> Please let me know if i missed anything. >> >> v3 mislead me here and three different subsystems in one patchset. >> >> Anyway, if this is different patch then review follows - there is no ABI >> impact explanation and this is an ABI break. What's more, entries are >> not sorted anymore and why there is a gap? spi4, spi1 and spi10? Where >> is spi3? >> >> Not sure if this renaming is useful or correct, especially considering >> not many arguments in commit msg (e.g. datasheet?). >> >> > > Hi Krzysztof, > > The IPQ5424 supports two SPI instances on serial engine 4 and 5. > Previously, SPI clocks, gpio pins and DTS node names were named > according to protocol instances like spi0 and spi1. > > As per the feedback received in > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/ca0ecc07-fd45-4116-9927-8eb3e737505f@oss.qualcomm.com/, > spi0 has been renamed to spi4 to align with the serial engine instance. > > Kindly advice if it's not acceptable. The advice was not about pins, though. My comments stands for commit msg. Nothing about ABI, nothing about datasheet... Best regards, Krzysztof
On 12/30/2024 1:46 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 30/12/2024 08:50, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >> >> >> On 12/27/2024 3:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 27/12/2024 10:18, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/27/2024 1:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 27/12/2024 08:24, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >>>>>> SPI protocol runs on serial engine 4. Hence rename >>>>>> spi0 pins to spi4 like spi0_cs to spi4_cs etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <form letter> >>>>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process. >>>>> >>>>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it. >>>>> >>>>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: >>>>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions >>>>> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed >>>>> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is >>>>> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing >>>>> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost >>>>> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for >>>>> tags received on the version they apply. >>>>> >>>>> Please read: >>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577 >>>>> >>>>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. >>>>> </form letter> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>> >>>> Patches #1 to #4 are newly added in V3 (to rename SPI0 to SPI4). Hence, there are no A-b/R-b >>>> tags associated with these patches. I mentioned this information in the cover letter. >>>> >>>> I assume you are referring to Patch #1 from the V2 series. >>>> Patch #1 [1] and #2 [2] from the V2 series have been merged into linux-next. >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-2-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ >>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-3-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com/ >>>> >>>> Please let me know if i missed anything. >>> >>> v3 mislead me here and three different subsystems in one patchset. >>> >>> Anyway, if this is different patch then review follows - there is no ABI >>> impact explanation and this is an ABI break. What's more, entries are >>> not sorted anymore and why there is a gap? spi4, spi1 and spi10? Where >>> is spi3? >>> >>> Not sure if this renaming is useful or correct, especially considering >>> not many arguments in commit msg (e.g. datasheet?). >>> >>> >> >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> The IPQ5424 supports two SPI instances on serial engine 4 and 5. >> Previously, SPI clocks, gpio pins and DTS node names were named >> according to protocol instances like spi0 and spi1. >> >> As per the feedback received in >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/ca0ecc07-fd45-4116-9927-8eb3e737505f@oss.qualcomm.com/, >> spi0 has been renamed to spi4 to align with the serial engine instance. >> >> Kindly advice if it's not acceptable. > > The advice was not about pins, though. My comments stands for commit > msg. Nothing about ABI, nothing about datasheet... > I will update the commit message in the next version. Thanks & Regards, Manikanta.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.