Re: [RFC] dt-bindings: firmware: scmi: Introduce compatible string

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:09:45AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 05:44:56PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > Quote Sudeep's reply"
> > I am not blocking you. What I mentioned is I don't agree that DT can be used
> > to resolve this issue, but I don't have time or alternate solution ATM. So
> > if you propose DT based solution and the maintainers agree for the proposed
> > bindings I will take a look and help you to make that work. But I will raise
> > any objections I may have if the proposal has issues mainly around the
> > compatibility and ease of maintenance.
> > "
>
> This all looks to me like SCMI has failed to provide common interfaces.
>

We can look into this if having such common interface can solve this problem.

> I'm indifferent. If everyone involved thinks adding compatibles will
> solve whatever the issues are, then it's going to be fine with me
> (other than the issue above). It doesn't seem like you have that, so I
> don't know that I'd keep going down this path.

Sorry if I was ambiguous with my stance as quoted above. For me, 2 devices
pointing to the same node seems implementation issue rather than fixing/
working around by extending DT bindings like this $subject patch is
attempting.

If you disagree with that and think 2 devices in the kernel shouldn't
point to the same device tree node, then yes I see this is right approach
to take. ATM I don't know which is correct and what are other developer's
include DT maintainer opinion on this. I just didn't like the way Peng
was trying to solve it with some block/allow list which wouldn't have
fixed the issue or just created new ones.

--
Regards,
Sudeep