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 D8F78C54E94 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:45:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=euSn9bF0UdRzMs9tqM76KLaFMUjrONMe1WGJMI9qN14=; b=z1jzUjGDccd/Ll bPpRLpMIYXCBOF4U9l0uhpQQZXWbTYjnYOzEjJ/JvIRZd/yMy82f06Y0ApTHNxHesXzshZVnRjTm3 to5qSCUTxedYQEIAyxXTQ5m3dl194DrVtrHV970OG9iJQ5Avi0WB37zw8GWHrG7OR+kZ7+Z8B9G/v 82CYnSbm6SJI4jKiMhK1CrDrST95DASq/FO0Wl4GqCYgxQrmMwTxkWQq4fHOfkvOVwzek6Z9N7C8G lxrDyEX0ZdyLMvmlp6++ROOl2izZi236Tk2P2pmb2zht1nKwU9nK5c5rg39OUvhwjsZTHNwqOg975 tzEa1KQDNk1zTg/GsbBA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pKynT-00AJBJ-Fj; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:43:55 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pKynQ-00AJAW-7j for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:43:53 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50394B3; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 01:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from e120937-lin (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C6F53F71E; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 01:43:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:43:44 +0000 From: Cristian Marussi To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child node properties Message-ID: References: <20230124222023.316089-1-robh@kernel.org> <20230125141113.kkbowopusikuogx6@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230125141113.kkbowopusikuogx6@bogus> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230126_014352_344592_30782B60 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 21.93 ) 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:11:13PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:43:48PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > so now that the catch-all protocol@ patternProperty is gone in favour > > of the 'protocol-node' definition and $refs, does that mean that any > > current and future SCMI officially published protocol has to be > > added to the above explicit protocol list, even though it does not > > have any special additional required property beside reg ? > > (like protocol@18 above...) > > > > If there are no consumers, should we just not add and deal with it > entirely within the kernel. I know we rely today on presence of node > before we initialise, but hey we have exception for system power protocol > for other reasons, why not add this one too. > > In short we shouldn't have to add a node if there are no consumers. It > was one of the topic of discussion initially when SCMI binding was added > and they exist only for the consumers otherwise we don't need it as > everything is discoverable from the interface. It is fine for me the no-consumers/no-node argument (which anyway would require a few changes in the core init logic anyway to work this way...), BUT is it not that ANY protocol (even future-ones) does have, potentially, consumers indeed, since each protocol-node can potentially have a dedicated channel and related DT channel-descriptor ? (when multiple channels are allowed by the transport) I mean, as an example, you dont strictly need protos 0x18/0x12 nodes for anything (if we patch the core init as said) UNLESS you want to dedicate a channel to those protocols; so I'm just checking here if these kind of scenarios will still be allowed with this binding change, or if I am missing something. Thanks, Cristian _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel