Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child node properties

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:46 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:43:44AM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:11:13PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:43:48PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > > so now that the catch-all protocol@ patternProperty is gone in favour
> > > > of the 'protocol-node' definition and $refs, does that mean that any
> > > > current and future SCMI officially published protocol <N> has to be
> > > > added to the above explicit protocol list, even though it does not
> > > > have any special additional required property beside reg ?
> > > > (like protocol@18 above...)
> > > >
> > >
> > > If there are no consumers, should we just not add and deal with it
> > > entirely within the kernel. I know we rely today on presence of node
> > > before we initialise, but hey we have exception for system power protocol
> > > for other reasons, why not add this one too.
> > >
> > > In short we shouldn't have to add a node if there are no consumers. It
> > > was one of the topic of discussion initially when SCMI binding was added
> > > and they exist only for the consumers otherwise we don't need it as
> > > everything is discoverable from the interface.
> >
> > It is fine for me the no-consumers/no-node argument (which anyway would
> > require a few changes in the core init logic anyway to work this way...),
> > BUT is it not that ANY protocol (even future-ones) does have, potentially,
> > consumers indeed, since each protocol-node can potentially have a dedicated
> > channel and related DT channel-descriptor ? (when multiple channels are
> > allowed by the transport)
> >
> > I mean, as an example, you dont strictly need protos 0x18/0x12 nodes for
> > anything (if we patch the core init as said) UNLESS you want to dedicate
> > a channel to those protocols; so I'm just checking here if these kind of
> > scenarios will still be allowed with this binding change, or if I am
> > missing something.
>
> Ah, good point on the transport information. Yes we will need a node if
> a protocol has a dedicated transport. No one has used so far other than
> Juno perf, but we never know. We can always extended the bindings if
> needed.
>
> Sorry for missing the dedicated transport part.

So I need to add back 'protocol@.*' or not?

Rob