From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:36:34 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol In-Reply-To: <4e31f1d9-61b9-53a9-bd0c-dd5e452faece@arm.com> References: <1478148731-11712-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1478148731-11712-7-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20161110012249.ed56ik6kdffoikym@rob-hp-laptop> <14e563ae-36c5-4bf9-0d51-3b07830de3db@arm.com> <7ccc12bc-9a05-47e3-8ab8-d1b0ad31159e@arm.com> <4e31f1d9-61b9-53a9-bd0c-dd5e452faece@arm.com> Message-ID: <88a5a995-05fc-2369-be00-805469b8e853@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/11/16 14:19, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 11/11/16 13:34, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla >> wrote: [...] >>> >>> True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ? >> >> That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations >> are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how >> many releases did ARM make before 1.0. >> > > None officially, so I tend to agree with you on this. > > But so far we have seen some commonality between Rockchip and Amlogic > implementations, which in fact shares some commonality with early > release of SCPI from ARM (there are based on the same SCP code base, > which is closed source and released to partners only). ARM improved the > specification and the code base before the official release but by then > it was adopted(as usual we were late ;)) > > IMO, it's might be useful to have more generic say "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" > and platform specific "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi" > Rob and Olof, is it convincing enough reason to have generic compatible? Or you prefer to drop it ? I prefer to have "arm,scpi-pre-1.0". IMO it's useful, let me know. I need to send PR as it's getting late now. -- Regards, Sudeep