From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom: Add firmware bindings for Q6V5 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:50:45 -0800 Message-ID: <20190103235043.GA195759@google.com> References: <20181228044819.5697-1-sibis@codeaurora.org> <20181228044819.5697-2-sibis@codeaurora.org> <20190103233014.GA181833@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190103233014.GA181833@google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sibi Sankar Cc: bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, david.brown@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, andy.gross@linaro.org, akdwived@codeaurora.org, clew@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org, ohad@wizery.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 03:30:14PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:18:18AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > > +- firmware-name: > > + Usage: optional > > + Value type: > > + Definition: must list the relative firmware image path for the > > + Hexagon Core. > > Relative to what? I still think it's a terrible idea that your driver > looks for files at the top-level /lib/firmware/ directory, but now > you're leaking this into the device tree. This should at a bare minimum > be namespaced to something like the qcom/ sub-directory. But ideally, > the driver would automatically be deriving a further sub-directory of > qcom/ based on the chipset or something, and then the only thing you'd > describe here is some kind of variant string -- something akin to > ath10k's qcom,ath10k-calibration-variant (see > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.txt), which > doesn't require a full path-name or any hierarchy. Oh, I see Rob actually recommended this binding in v1, and it's (sort of) in use by a few other drivers. Is it really expected that we put arbitrary pathnames in device tree? None of the binding documentation seems very specific to me, and their implementations *do* allow arbitrary text. As it stands today, this is a great recipe for name collision -- e.g., how the driver today suggests "modem.XYZ" names; is Qualcomm really the only one out there making modems? :D So my natural instinct is to avoid this. But if that's what everybody wants... Brian