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 84BB0C021B8 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:23:32 +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=iGdWGd+u9Zw8XuMYIbWjrQD+w6VWtvu/cVGoEvur0E0=; b=L08YEVZkojmwQyVd5fMa1f/gVG dGKc79IZEXxdJu++bZKuYxFTjjehsjCoetAGvLGpxzlwi5GFidyGg/Fok08w5CuU2tpeGOPuid7du nDnWZCahwswN5/Lo2RqyhwRMxwU8lR2JJSz2uWrgTqvMqh+TsrvDxRfTFVyocTmUWEaG35kClLkKb phkOVTegbieuoUlJYfIXRdaBKHtP80qWo0m4Cs4jEROqq5JV0Vr0gcHQ1FBALWVzZ3j8RXidc21RG DjKR46JAez4v9yZ6urs9UHbl2m0HRHP2qYDwX9G9J3sPbq9pzJsPNUiFbr3EBSMgK1qMDJUufG6NQ pRgf+B8g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tnL7w-00000004iPR-2rE5; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:23:20 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tnL4h-00000004hWl-2S70 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:20:01 +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 312EA1516; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 09:20:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (e133711.arm.com [10.1.196.55]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4536D3F673; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 09:19:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:19:53 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Rob Herring Cc: "Peng Fan (OSS)" , cristian.marussi@arm.com, Sudeep Holla , saravanak@google.com, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peng Fan Subject: Re: [RFC] dt-bindings: firmware: scmi: Introduce compatible string Message-ID: References: <20250226094456.2351571-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com> <20250226160945.GA2505223-robh@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250226160945.GA2505223-robh@kernel.org> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250226_091959_669746_0859B63C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 22.27 ) 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 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