From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C013C27C78 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:40:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=h0ddb+WIGiR/+5uLz3IQifrsTNo9FDwj5crMyEw4ZCE=; b=KSqjEu6IFSfHgIsPhYIdCN97Ns suFrC5eyEtofQn43F/n9PvtAl267z/AJbv+ny2hSak7XwoxLyhltqfVrEfnQcXJ0vKxLHYGEvo6u8 reYuMOLpeUwGgPBrLDLvXkZCL7RTwTbAiNV1ZAf2eBZeq6LHt2qrjHufmyGBo/dOG7zw/4q1Cl92R mD0LiPtdVRZ2oyKX9D5lmiRzP1KIkBlXfHVenEfLmgpQKgpeXnSu0BKmgadXdOMyeWw/Y5kphdpjB Uneps7AOLuhUfm9oVDs8cAjwLNF7OEAsqzxhsmlnGPCUR1DgFgZj5HDXECuT5CBM26HWmsRD3H7SB l5Xsov4w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sKmvv-0000000An2W-2cWf; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:40:39 +0000 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com ([205.220.168.131]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sKmvq-0000000An0w-2JBa for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:40:36 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0279863.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 45LLwZZl027622; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:40:25 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh=h0ddb+WIGiR/+5uLz3IQifrs TNo9FDwj5crMyEw4ZCE=; b=Hl/q2ulAwXsiKpKKwVdNjvkKe5lbKS8pmdleHwVQ 48ITA6zHpmkXbXNSQ1RrK2BWt1xal0XjDxU+txHhcjSGrc7Tmkyz0yEv43++/u38 zKCp2P7Fr2iDzyENfZWVH7KRd8RZkh5XJQpXTWl2GnGA5kogyspNpiytRJ7h4yPD hNoOXb8QYevpjDlcxZciE/Jj8zDBl8S6x5G6G7ZZ9DkLEW55xDMPxLaovek6t6iK KmmSrFvSuUsmZ07QtgiheLSZvAx8gUcQzyRpZgTgGXr1ujI0jVYPbgK4qodGWU0D hhN1bVsq7k2Z58RExNxyzV7jyKLGcxg1ukybtjnhVtS91Q== Received: from nasanppmta03.qualcomm.com (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ywhw581r4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:40:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com [10.46.141.250]) by NASANPPMTA03.qualcomm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTPS id 45LMeLeK023284 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:40:21 GMT Received: from hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com (10.49.16.6) by nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.9; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:40:20 -0700 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:40:20 -0700 From: Elliot Berman To: Simon Glass CC: Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Bjorn Andersson , Konrad Dybcio , Amrit Anand , "Peter Griffin" , Caleb Connolly , Andy Gross , Doug Anderson , Chen-Yu Tsai , Julius Werner , "Humphreys, Jonathan" , "Sumit Garg" , Michal Simek , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 0/9] dt-bindings: hwinfo: Introduce board-id Message-ID: <20240621142054973-0700.eberman@hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com> References: <20240521-board-ids-v3-0-e6c71d05f4d2@quicinc.com> <20240605100246481-0700.eberman@hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [10.49.16.6] X-ClientProxiedBy: nalasex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.97.35) To nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-GUID: aMnnWvPZXbpMlGkJtooadWu_tY6AtbVb X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: aMnnWvPZXbpMlGkJtooadWu_tY6AtbVb X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.28.16 definitions=2024-06-21_12,2024-06-21_01,2024-05-17_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2406140001 definitions=main-2406210165 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240621_154034_691525_A1DC62A1 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 29.51 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Simon, On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:00:54AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 11:17, Elliot Berman wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 07:17:35AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Elliot, > > > > > > I am just picking up the discussion here, which was started on another thread. > > > > > > I can't see why this new feature is needed. We should be able to use > > > compatible strings, as we do now. I added a 'usage' section to the FIT > > > spec [1] which might help. I also incorporated the board revision and > > > variant information and some notes on how to add to the available > > > suffixes. > > > > > > Does that handle your use case? > > > > -rev and -sku don't fit the versioning scheme for QTI devices, so this > > isn't a generic enough approach. Patch 5 in this series describes the > > versioning scheme for us. > > > > In the other thread, we had talked about using some regex based approach > > for matching the root node compatible. I haven't had chance to work on > > that proposal and will try to get to it in the next couple weeks. > > OK, I look forward to it. Please do check the FIT best match approach > and see how it might be extended to handle your requirements. So far I > have not seen a need for regexes, but it is certainly a possibility. > I spent some time collecting feedback from the team on using compatible strings + regex-style approach and we're not able to add a regex library into firmware, so this approach unfortunately won't work for us. Because we have more axes of board identification than chromebook, using FIT's compatible strings isn't a scalable solution for us. I don't think we have incompatible problems, we only have more than 2-3 axes of information. Thanks, Elliot