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

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

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:15:51AM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 05:19:53PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >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.
> 
> With compatible string, no need block/allow list anymore I think.
> 

I completely understand that, I was referring to your earlier alternative
solution to this $subject approach. Sorry if that was evidently clear.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep