Message ID | 20211220115405.30434-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | Samsung for v5.17 | expand |
On 20/12/2021 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:54 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> 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