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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A8A9C53210 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2023 17:22:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233104AbjAHRWD (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2023 12:22:03 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52524 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236150AbjAHRVU (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2023 12:21:20 -0500 Received: from mail.andi.de1.cc (mail.andi.de1.cc [IPv6:2a01:238:4321:8900:456f:ecd6:43e:202c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7DCEFD01; Sun, 8 Jan 2023 09:21:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kemnade.info; s=20220719; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=TCp6tJCAXorQS+hyqzrROi+oUu1HjiFY2abUnTeE8X0=; b=6zuAI8OxvnD/VOjsgvYLfcK2zF HnkF8RtEh56tmkiwq7wysye22+rZXem89Cw54fnc1bxTxP1RNGmylxQY0MjrrvJr5j8MwY0xquxx6 y0jQlgxZgZZaLFGfXD4VhKc9+M85A0TuzprQhaA/C0PZEKNTAfV03JLo+y/OgBlvzSiR/yEiWP94+ JCTBiZolAlnQLbaRgsCZgHqy3IukuAFtBUN8epvPXGg3yDpfEiyF0DWS5FhI8bY0s/msyiD4ARKqE RZKL9qZHnCKuRz9gTWXfnCo20e/1ce2JWlh2fkoCH58wQRLGJQOl73SIwk4qsxFe/u2PUiuQfzEYO kjnqSO9g==; Received: from p200300ccff436a001a3da2fffebfd33a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:cc:ff43:6a00:1a3d:a2ff:febf:d33a] helo=aktux) by mail.andi.de1.cc with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1pEZLm-0008En-4k; Sun, 08 Jan 2023 18:20:50 +0100 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2023 18:20:49 +0100 From: Andreas Kemnade To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: ulf.hansson@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, shawnguo@kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, kernel@pengutronix.de, festevam@gmail.com, linux-imx@nxp.com, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mmc: fsl-imx-esdhc: allow more compatible combinations Message-ID: <20230108182049.679de9f9@aktux> In-Reply-To: <70474070-404b-2fbe-2575-4810f6fbda91@linaro.org> References: <20230105213856.1828360-1-andreas@kemnade.info> <20230106203358.14878660@aktux> <967cc7b7-f0bb-de37-52b9-7bfab05eadd7@linaro.org> <20230107144336.2ecff4f9@aktux> <123d1a56-8134-dc75-8b2a-b3836e727d4a@linaro.org> <20230107150740.0ba34aa1@aktux> <0ab84fb8-6173-54e0-abad-a0e0e4ba82e7@linaro.org> <20230107160105.66df4136@aktux> <20230107165457.30f4dddf@aktux> <70474070-404b-2fbe-2575-4810f6fbda91@linaro.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 15:45:44 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/01/2023 16:54, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 16:07:35 +0100 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > >> On 07/01/2023 16:01, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > >>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:09:24 +0100 > >>> Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 07/01/2023 15:07, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:00:56 +0100 > >>>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>> I asked to remove half-compatible. Not to enforce. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> so you are saying that allowing > >>>>> compatible = "A", "B" > >>>>> is not ok, if B is not fully compatible. I agree with that > >>>>> one. > >>>> > >>>> I did not say that. It's not related to this problem. > >>>> > >>> You said "I asked to remove half-compatible" that means to me > >>> remove "B" if not fully compatible with A which sounds sane to me. > >>> > >>>> Again - you cannot have device which is and is not compatible with > >>>> something else. It's not a Schroedinger's cat to be in two states, > >>>> unless you explicitly document the cases (there are exception). If this > >>>> is such exception, it requires it's own documentation. > >>>> > >>> so conclusion: > >>> If having A and B half-compatible with A: > >>> > >>> compatible = "A" only: is allowed to specifiy it the binding (status quo), > >>> but not allowed to make the actual dtsi match the binding documentation > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/72e1194e10ccb4f87aed96265114f0963e805092.camel@pengutronix.de/ > >>> and > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210924091439.2561931-5-andreas@kemnade.info/ > >>> > >>> compatible = "A", "B" in the binding definition: is not allowed ("I asked to remove > >>> half-compatible" (= removing B)) > >> > >> No, half compatible is the A in such case. > >> > > I think that there is some misunderstanding in here. I try once again. > > > > Define compatible with "X" here: > > To me it means: > > > > device fully works with flags defined in: > > > > static const struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_X_data = { ... }; > > > > with usdhc_X_data referenced in > > { .compatible = "X", .data = &usdhc_X_data, }, > > > > > > So if there is only "A" matching with above definition of compatibility > > compatible = "A" would sound sane to me. > > > > And scrutinizing the flags more and not just wanting to achieve error-free > > dtbs_check, I think is this in most cases where there is only "A". > > > > If there is "A" and "B" which match that compatibility definition, you > > say that only compatible = "A", "B" is allowed, but not compatible = "A". > > In that case I would have no problem with that. > > > > But if there is only "A" but no "B" matching the above definition, I would expect > > that only compatible = "A" is allowed but *not* compatible = "A", "B". > > Sorry, I don't follow. I also do not understand what "matching" means in > these terms (binding driver? of_match?) and also I do not know what is > the "above definition". > > Devicetree spec defines the compatibility - so this is the definition. > There will be differences when applying it to different cases. > Ok, lets stop talking about A and B, lets be more specific. Hmm, I try to insert the missing bits here: I am not convinced anymore that my patch is correct - for dtb compatible formality - for pure technical reasons I am not convinced that your proposal is correct either. - for pure technical reasons (for same resan as you state) Especially this part I consider faulty: + - items: + - const: fsl,imx6sx-usdhc + - const: fsl,imx6sl-usdhc Keyword: ESDHC_FLAG_STATE_LOST_IN_LPMODE (detailed that in an earlier mail). Regards Andreas