From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62306227599; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:12:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740647545; cv=none; b=Ff4ZjdYwh6HzSUN9gkdcaW3ntb4navV8XM+K46Kd6bow5Q0vh8wzocuE74ttSpBQeJklWQ5cHEAOPOPXZe0ecvO5/jlelHO5G0hg13I5CViSnuaTvgEs6t/yWv7+int4qVLj+DOb/KlfQPETMkA6+C6GshJenEfH7u2TiKS/PW8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740647545; c=relaxed/simple; bh=l/ugFLJaIKamHn5kr0KvgF8RGwpPoaLUQqqZx88pHY4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ePNvnAg49+CvK2ghBgYd5dxdpUuRL/vufix7mOjO1lxESZ1CT9AKALN91RlPVmkWeBlFMkDOfqYMhpd8VzhiIg4FpCeVp+UzZb/tv4F4Dr8ndqYHW5rgfDqFGQsAEQfSfB8QOSCfD7l3J432qZjb855OvanLymW/CecDf3BxulE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250227031551.GC11411@nxa18884-linux> 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