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 1C459C19F2E for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:14:11 +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=sfKKlZuDCNLGw2tdmgJXJuKGo/tGh15gbtXLZF/uf4I=; b=F87QsFz/ELCr8oixLriEZv1ZYZ oLI0t/IxlrMBG+3lz0nbX8Ry3Y+YLDeSGgvEm/FL1qB4wBgM4ZirUX2Mdua5UGVhdxRPSovr7YJh6 dZ1ekrqYNCaL7bbJIimDTSDKqFzFkm6rCZRvHgijgQGyjOm2cdfn2s+IY5XdVJaS/M4VxdwT5am26 a87o4gJKJNuJQCNCKQKyRhTCas2eexFp4tISm3VFlmJakr+TBYly6w7S5+cy/8MBKPOJK4sUvrBSt w5VUQxEMEPu1i0XF3JBw5CNUaj/qarJZATO0BDkVLOgIshAysaDXzo3I4DEPqwR71+xRaRHSoyHZe HaCXyBPg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tnZxw-00000006pNt-1yYR; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:14:00 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tnZwO-00000006pEd-0ydF for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:12:25 +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 145782BCA; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 01:12:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (e133711.arm.com [10.1.196.55]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88B543F6A8; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 01:12:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:12:18 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Peng Fan Cc: Rob Herring , , , , , , , , , 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> <20250227031551.GC11411@nxa18884-linux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250227031551.GC11411@nxa18884-linux> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250227_011224_312998_C6157A05 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 26.13 ) 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 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