From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6166A224C7 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710322292; cv=none; b=CpGkN9ezscx04xfbWgzGqCNkaE46uL70jh+gBEcgoGS9KiLNZpO+wvX5xdRIgRrg3P2WbUayP7eszLsKOUYlFSdH6bmf83Mmj6IFarLgjWwxkFGjo2umDG785QRp1GWCHBaNEMXCNbBplOgiI6KhSnnK1pcv5VAjPnI/cJOaICM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710322292; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mDMb14t9XVbOW7NkL0VbREYZ2duW2O7QPAm7fUJbm04=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=e2J6ao/KtgkuxLMTyt7eaykw94YGcpwrM+AXq6Hp48mz73p8VnQ1R69hCFDd64hUDdsa5QwAKy2zL0Fes+Y8TTa3rzp2bKFLy/WPUsnV5KU4rCOMQ8tQNVr622rmb3h3h+sSsYmks578iWYRIqGshwfeVNcj8uBpWmAMFF+G1SY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b=LPtJGufS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b="LPtJGufS" Received: from pps.filterd (m0279866.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.24/8.17.1.24) with ESMTP id 42D2wLnF029540; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:31:24 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h= message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references:from :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= qcppdkim1; bh=bBz4pwvDGjx/XDRgFeGGbVpralabP38T7RemDdC4ebo=; b=LP tJGufSEj1Q82qZxS/b8eg3568fQIIIFk9vNgAHutsoykjSUNSC9NlmZpsXAs6N5Y MWecXfsRmggypY6s1ozzkw5l+GJperwcfjjUlfObJBXs5xwkCk46JcgZWj6KJzyZ UbnMP5zEVzO3SORRZa9UldmOPaIZMp8sxEAaCjHatZIpWuErWKX7A/BqOc2zcOMP 36bPE5JjqVGeN7A7h2KYW+9DGAJAoxiuzH65DKck2Qlycjfbc5hnVyA0afrFFZFF dE4SzRXd4gwdk5bNPBozX3wn2ut4wfnn7CBC+IW70xzO/xoKqBZgtxSGWH3avGcD SCIKIYaRTv4KmCn5rthQ== Received: from nasanppmta05.qualcomm.com (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3wu3jn0px8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:31:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com [10.46.141.250]) by NASANPPMTA05.qualcomm.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTPS id 42D9VNi7023194 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:31:23 GMT Received: from [10.216.51.194] (10.80.80.8) by nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.40; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:31:18 -0700 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:31:03 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: DT Query on "New Compatible vs New Property" To: Ulf Hansson , Trilok Soni , Srinivas Kandagatla CC: Sudeep Holla , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Manivannan Sadhasivam , , Vincent Guittot , , , , "Prasad Sodagudi (QUIC)" References: <32092ee9-018f-4cfb-950e-26c69764f35a@quicinc.com> <94a62a78-961a-4286-804c-fc0b9098b8a1@quicinc.com> <20240228140239.gkzcytw6cmb4opja@bogus> <799268ac-7ffb-4b99-b037-d5bb93d37f13@linaro.org> <20240228160925.fcitj2yz7hisidsl@bogus> <2b0a11f4-f54e-461c-91e7-8f313d91abe8@linaro.org> <321069a8-2c46-4871-b85a-5e9cbdda5b5d@quicinc.com> <3aad2e6b-88fd-06ab-95c5-d07f012e8306@quicinc.com> <989dee90-9c44-09b9-6940-687082109ae7@quicinc.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Nikunj Kela In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) To nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: MBSYrX-5MF-FiVeMYlqIENeZgKBT6ijv X-Proofpoint-GUID: MBSYrX-5MF-FiVeMYlqIENeZgKBT6ijv X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-03-13_07,2024-03-12_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2402120000 definitions=main-2403130069 On 3/13/2024 2:19 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 18:25, Trilok Soni wrote: >> On 3/12/2024 10:21 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: >>>> Basically, I would prefer better than "qcom, fw-managed" since this is not >>>> a qcom specific problem. >>> >>> We already have something like this in mainline where the BAM DMA controller is remotely powered. >>> >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml?h=v6.8 >>> >> As you can see it is already fragmented. Why we need to create one more approach >> which is not scalable and specific to SOC vendor? >> >> SCMI or RPMI based firmware is not a QC specific. I also have allergic reaction >> when I see drivers modified w/ if (fw_managed) {..} but that is a discussion >> for some other day. >> >> > For the record, I fully agree with Trilok here. > > More importantly, why is the other suggested approach(es) a problem? I > don't get it. Hi Ulf, Srini mentioned that the option of "every driver checking for board level compatible/board-id" was once tried before and was rejected in upstream. So I didn't want to embark upon something that was already rejected once. Srini can provide pointers on that. > > Kind regards > Uffe