[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Sean Anderson]

These bindings document the same hardware (just different minor
revisions). Remove the newer fsl,t1023-sfp.

Fixes: aa1ed6047107 ("dt-bindings: nvmem: Add t1023-sfp efuse support")
Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@linux.dev>
---

 .../bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml    | 21 ++++++++++-
 .../bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml         | 37 -------------------
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
index 70fb2ad25103..8a54dd1328ea 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
@@ -19,6 +19,13 @@ allOf:
 properties:
   compatible:
     oneOf:
+      - description: Trust architecture 2.0 SFP
+        items:
+          enum:
+            - fsl,t1023-sfp
+            - fsl,t1040-sfp
+            - fsl,t2080-sfp
+            - fsl,t4240-sfp
       - description: Trust architecture 2.1 SFP
         items:
           - const: fsl,ls1021a-sfp
@@ -45,8 +52,18 @@ properties:
 required:
   - compatible
   - reg
-  - clock-names
-  - clocks
+
+if:
+  properties:
+    compatible:
+      contains:
+        enum:
+          - fsl,ls1021a-sfp
+          - fsl,ls1028a-sfp
+then:
+  required:
+    - clocks
+    - clock-names
 
 unevaluatedProperties: false
 
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml
deleted file mode 100644
index df826b40d8ca..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
-# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
-%YAML 1.2
----
-$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml#
-$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
-
-title: NXP QorIQ eFuse support
-
-maintainers:
-  - Richard Alpe <richard@bit42.se>
-
-description:
-  Read support for the eFuses (SFP) on NXP QorIQ series SoC's.
-
-allOf:
-  - $ref: nvmem.yaml#
-
-properties:
-  compatible:
-    const: fsl,t1023-sfp
-
-  reg:
-    maxItems: 1
-
-required:
-  - compatible
-  - reg
-
-unevaluatedProperties: false
-
-examples:
-  - |
-    efuse@e8000 {
-        compatible = "fsl,t1023-sfp";
-        reg = <0xe8000 0x1000>;
-    };
-...
-- 
2.35.1.1320.gc452695387.dirty

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3191 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 08:20:25PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> These bindings document the same hardware (just different minor
> revisions). Remove the newer fsl,t1023-sfp.
> 
> Fixes: aa1ed6047107 ("dt-bindings: nvmem: Add t1023-sfp efuse support")
> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@linux.dev>
> ---
> 
>  .../bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml    | 21 ++++++++++-
>  .../bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml         | 37 -------------------
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
> index 70fb2ad25103..8a54dd1328ea 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
> @@ -19,6 +19,13 @@ allOf:
>  properties:
>    compatible:
>      oneOf:
> +      - description: Trust architecture 2.0 SFP
> +        items:
> +          enum:
> +            - fsl,t1023-sfp

> +            - fsl,t1040-sfp
> +            - fsl,t2080-sfp
> +            - fsl,t4240-sfp

You should at least mention where these three compatibles came from,
given they were not documented in t1023-sfp.yaml. Additionally, should
they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
is for the t1023-sfp.

Cheers,
Conor.

>        - description: Trust architecture 2.1 SFP
>          items:
>            - const: fsl,ls1021a-sfp
> @@ -45,8 +52,18 @@ properties:
>  required:
>    - compatible
>    - reg
> -  - clock-names
> -  - clocks
> +
> +if:
> +  properties:
> +    compatible:
> +      contains:
> +        enum:
> +          - fsl,ls1021a-sfp
> +          - fsl,ls1028a-sfp
> +then:
> +  required:
> +    - clocks
> +    - clock-names
>  
>  unevaluatedProperties: false
>  
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml
> deleted file mode 100644
> index df826b40d8ca..000000000000
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
> -# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> -%YAML 1.2
> ----
> -$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml#
> -$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> -
> -title: NXP QorIQ eFuse support
> -
> -maintainers:
> -  - Richard Alpe <richard@bit42.se>
> -
> -description:
> -  Read support for the eFuses (SFP) on NXP QorIQ series SoC's.
> -
> -allOf:
> -  - $ref: nvmem.yaml#
> -
> -properties:
> -  compatible:
> -    const: fsl,t1023-sfp
> -
> -  reg:
> -    maxItems: 1
> -
> -required:
> -  - compatible
> -  - reg
> -
> -unevaluatedProperties: false
> -
> -examples:
> -  - |
> -    efuse@e8000 {
> -        compatible = "fsl,t1023-sfp";
> -        reg = <0xe8000 0x1000>;
> -    };
> -...
> -- 
> 2.35.1.1320.gc452695387.dirty
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 08:20:25PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> These bindings document the same hardware (just different minor
> revisions). Remove the newer fsl,t1023-sfp.
> 
> Fixes: aa1ed6047107 ("dt-bindings: nvmem: Add t1023-sfp efuse support")

I don't think Fixes is appropriate here. What was broken?

> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@linux.dev>
> ---
> 
>  .../bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml    | 21 ++++++++++-
>  .../bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml         | 37 -------------------
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml

Otherwise,

Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[richard]

On 2024-03-17 22:12, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 08:20:25PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> These bindings document the same hardware (just different minor
>> revisions). Remove the newer fsl,t1023-sfp.
>> 
>> Fixes: aa1ed6047107 ("dt-bindings: nvmem: Add t1023-sfp efuse 
>> support")
> 
> I don't think Fixes is appropriate here. What was broken?
I also don't think Fixes is appropriate. Apart from that:

Acked-by: Richard Alpe <richard@bit42.se>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Sean Anderson]

On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 08:20:25PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> These bindings document the same hardware (just different minor
>> revisions). Remove the newer fsl,t1023-sfp.
>> 
>> Fixes: aa1ed6047107 ("dt-bindings: nvmem: Add t1023-sfp efuse support")
>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@linux.dev>
>> ---
>> 
>>  .../bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml    | 21 ++++++++++-
>>  .../bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml         | 37 -------------------
>>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
>> index 70fb2ad25103..8a54dd1328ea 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,layerscape-sfp.yaml
>> @@ -19,6 +19,13 @@ allOf:
>>  properties:
>>    compatible:
>>      oneOf:
>> +      - description: Trust architecture 2.0 SFP
>> +        items:
>> +          enum:
>> +            - fsl,t1023-sfp
> 
>> +            - fsl,t1040-sfp
>> +            - fsl,t2080-sfp
>> +            - fsl,t4240-sfp
> 
> You should at least mention where these three compatibles came from,
> given they were not documented in t1023-sfp.yaml

They come from the existing DTSs for these processors. Will add this to
the commit message.

> Additionally, should
> they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
> with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
> is for the t1023-sfp.

I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.

--Sean

>>        - description: Trust architecture 2.1 SFP
>>          items:
>>            - const: fsl,ls1021a-sfp
>> @@ -45,8 +52,18 @@ properties:
>>  required:
>>    - compatible
>>    - reg
>> -  - clock-names
>> -  - clocks
>> +
>> +if:
>> +  properties:
>> +    compatible:
>> +      contains:
>> +        enum:
>> +          - fsl,ls1021a-sfp
>> +          - fsl,ls1028a-sfp
>> +then:
>> +  required:
>> +    - clocks
>> +    - clock-names
>>  
>>  unevaluatedProperties: false
>>  
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml
>> deleted file mode 100644
>> index df826b40d8ca..000000000000
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml
>> +++ /dev/null
>> @@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
>> -# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> -%YAML 1.2
>> ----
>> -$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/nvmem/fsl,t1023-sfp.yaml#
>> -$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>> -
>> -title: NXP QorIQ eFuse support
>> -
>> -maintainers:
>> -  - Richard Alpe <richard@bit42.se>
>> -
>> -description:
>> -  Read support for the eFuses (SFP) on NXP QorIQ series SoC's.
>> -
>> -allOf:
>> -  - $ref: nvmem.yaml#
>> -
>> -properties:
>> -  compatible:
>> -    const: fsl,t1023-sfp
>> -
>> -  reg:
>> -    maxItems: 1
>> -
>> -required:
>> -  - compatible
>> -  - reg
>> -
>> -unevaluatedProperties: false
>> -
>> -examples:
>> -  - |
>> -    efuse@e8000 {
>> -        compatible = "fsl,t1023-sfp";
>> -        reg = <0xe8000 0x1000>;
>> -    };
>> -...
>> -- 
>> 2.35.1.1320.gc452695387.dirty
>> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 506 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:

> > Additionally, should
> > they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
> > with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
> > is for the t1023-sfp.
> 
> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.

Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require
updating the various dts files.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Sean Anderson]

On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
> 
>> > Additionally, should
>> > they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
>> > with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
>> > is for the t1023-sfp.
>> 
>> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.
> 
> Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require
> updating the various dts files.

Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable,
but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I
think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for
compatibility purposes.

--Sean

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1217 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:48:06AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > 
> >> > Additionally, should
> >> > they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
> >> > with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
> >> > is for the t1023-sfp.
> >> 
> >> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.
> > 
> > Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require
> > updating the various dts files.
> 
> Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable,
> but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I
> think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for
> compatibility purposes.

Just cos stuff snuck into the tree in dts files doesn't make it right
though, I'd rather the bindings were done correctly. I don't care if you
want to support all of the compatibles in the driver so that it works
with the existing devicetrees though, as long as you mention the
rationale in the commit message.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Sean Anderson]

On 3/19/24 13:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:48:06AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> >> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > Additionally, should
>> >> > they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
>> >> > with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
>> >> > is for the t1023-sfp.
>> >> 
>> >> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.
>> > 
>> > Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require
>> > updating the various dts files.
>> 
>> Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable,
>> but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I
>> think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for
>> compatibility purposes.
> 
> Just cos stuff snuck into the tree in dts files doesn't make it right
> though, I'd rather the bindings were done correctly. I don't care if you
> want to support all of the compatibles in the driver so that it works
> with the existing devicetrees though, as long as you mention the
> rationale in the commit message.

It doesn't really matter what the schema has as long as the driver supports
existing device trees.

--Sean

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 21/03/2024 17:21, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 3/19/24 13:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:48:06AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>> On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Additionally, should
>>>>>> they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
>>>>>> with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
>>>>>> is for the t1023-sfp.
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require
>>>> updating the various dts files.
>>>
>>> Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable,
>>> but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I
>>> think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for
>>> compatibility purposes.
>>
>> Just cos stuff snuck into the tree in dts files doesn't make it right
>> though, I'd rather the bindings were done correctly. I don't care if you
>> want to support all of the compatibles in the driver so that it works
>> with the existing devicetrees though, as long as you mention the
>> rationale in the commit message.
> 
> It doesn't really matter what the schema has as long as the driver supports
> existing device trees.

We do not talk about driver now but bindings. You add new compatibles on
a basis that they were already used. This cannot bypass regular review
comments, so if during regular review process we would require
fallbacks, then you are expected to listen to review also when
documenting existing compatibles. Otherwise everyone would prefer to
snuck in incorrect code and later document it "it was there!".

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Sean Anderson]

On 3/22/24 03:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 17:21, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 3/19/24 13:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:48:06AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>>> On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additionally, should
>>>>>>> they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
>>>>>>> with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
>>>>>>> is for the t1023-sfp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require
>>>>> updating the various dts files.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable,
>>>> but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I
>>>> think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for
>>>> compatibility purposes.
>>>
>>> Just cos stuff snuck into the tree in dts files doesn't make it right
>>> though, I'd rather the bindings were done correctly. I don't care if you
>>> want to support all of the compatibles in the driver so that it works
>>> with the existing devicetrees though, as long as you mention the
>>> rationale in the commit message.
>> 
>> It doesn't really matter what the schema has as long as the driver supports
>> existing device trees.
> 
> We do not talk about driver now but bindings. You add new compatibles on
> a basis that they were already used. This cannot bypass regular review
> comments, so if during regular review process we would require
> fallbacks, then you are expected to listen to review also when
> documenting existing compatibles. Otherwise everyone would prefer to
> snuck in incorrect code and later document it "it was there!".

To be clear, the existing nodes look like

	sfp: sfp@e8000 {
		compatible = "fsl,t1040-sfp";
		reg	   = <0xe8000 0x1000>;
	};

which is perfectly serviceable for read-only use (as the clock is only
necessary for writing). As these devices are effectively identical, the
compatible could also look like what the P-series has:

	sfp: sfp@e8000 {
		compatible = "fsl,p2041-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";
		reg	   = <0xe8000 0x1000>;
	};

but in either case, it is desirable for the driver to match based on the
more-specific compatible (as well as the less-specific compatible) as we
already have enough information from the more-specific compatible to
select the correct implementation.

--Sean

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Conor Dooley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3629 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:26:10PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 3/22/24 03:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 21/03/2024 17:21, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >> On 3/19/24 13:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:48:06AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >>>> On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Additionally, should
> >>>>>>> they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
> >>>>>>> with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
> >>>>>>> is for the t1023-sfp.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require
> >>>>> updating the various dts files.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable,
> >>>> but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I
> >>>> think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for
> >>>> compatibility purposes.
> >>>
> >>> Just cos stuff snuck into the tree in dts files doesn't make it right
> >>> though, I'd rather the bindings were done correctly. I don't care if you
> >>> want to support all of the compatibles in the driver so that it works
> >>> with the existing devicetrees though, as long as you mention the
> >>> rationale in the commit message.
> >> 
> >> It doesn't really matter what the schema has as long as the driver supports
> >> existing device trees.
> > 
> > We do not talk about driver now but bindings. You add new compatibles on
> > a basis that they were already used. This cannot bypass regular review
> > comments, so if during regular review process we would require
> > fallbacks, then you are expected to listen to review also when
> > documenting existing compatibles. Otherwise everyone would prefer to
> > snuck in incorrect code and later document it "it was there!".
> 
> To be clear, the existing nodes look like
> 
> 	sfp: sfp@e8000 {
> 		compatible = "fsl,t1040-sfp";
> 		reg	   = <0xe8000 0x1000>;
> 	};
> 
> which is perfectly serviceable for read-only use (as the clock is only
> necessary for writing). As these devices are effectively identical, the
> compatible could also look like what the P-series has:

I'd rather you just picked the oldest device and used that as the
fallback, rather than introducing an "<blah>-sfp-2.0" compatible.
The 2.1 and 3.0 ones don't have anything like that.

> 	sfp: sfp@e8000 {
> 		compatible = "fsl,p2041-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";
> 		reg	   = <0xe8000 0x1000>;
> 	};

None of the seem to be documented either btw:
rg fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p5020si-post.dtsi
371:		compatible = "fsl,p5020-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";

arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p2041si-post.dtsi
339:		compatible = "fsl,p2041-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";

arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p4080si-post.dtsi
386:		compatible = "fsl,p4080-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";

arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p3041si-post.dtsi
366:		compatible = "fsl,p3041-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";

arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p5040si-post.dtsi
331:		compatible = "fsl,p5040-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";

> 
> but in either case, it is desirable for the driver to match based on the
> more-specific compatible (as well as the less-specific compatible) as we
> already have enough information from the more-specific compatible to
> select the correct implementation.
> 
> --Sean

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: Remove fsl,t1023-sfp in favor of fsl,layerscape-sfp

[Sean Anderson]

On 3/22/24 14:14, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:26:10PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> On 3/22/24 03:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> > On 21/03/2024 17:21, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> >> On 3/19/24 13:55, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:48:06AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> >>>> On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Additionally, should
>> >>>>>>> they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files
>> >>>>>>> with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there
>> >>>>>>> is for the t1023-sfp.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require
>> >>>>> updating the various dts files.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable,
>> >>>> but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I
>> >>>> think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for
>> >>>> compatibility purposes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just cos stuff snuck into the tree in dts files doesn't make it right
>> >>> though, I'd rather the bindings were done correctly. I don't care if you
>> >>> want to support all of the compatibles in the driver so that it works
>> >>> with the existing devicetrees though, as long as you mention the
>> >>> rationale in the commit message.
>> >> 
>> >> It doesn't really matter what the schema has as long as the driver supports
>> >> existing device trees.
>> > 
>> > We do not talk about driver now but bindings. You add new compatibles on
>> > a basis that they were already used. This cannot bypass regular review
>> > comments, so if during regular review process we would require
>> > fallbacks, then you are expected to listen to review also when
>> > documenting existing compatibles. Otherwise everyone would prefer to
>> > snuck in incorrect code and later document it "it was there!".
>> 
>> To be clear, the existing nodes look like
>> 
>> 	sfp: sfp@e8000 {
>> 		compatible = "fsl,t1040-sfp";
>> 		reg	   = <0xe8000 0x1000>;
>> 	};
>> 
>> which is perfectly serviceable for read-only use (as the clock is only
>> necessary for writing). As these devices are effectively identical, the
>> compatible could also look like what the P-series has:
> 
> I'd rather you just picked the oldest device and used that as the
> fallback, rather than introducing an "<blah>-sfp-2.0" compatible.
> The 2.1 and 3.0 ones don't have anything like that.

Because of course no one looked around at the other SoCs and noticed
that they all have the same TA version and use the same document for
this device. I would rather use a common name based on the version,
rather than arbitrarily picking a SoC to be "compatible" with. This
doesn't make sense to me, since each SoC's reference manual just calls
out to the appropriate TA manual for all register definitions.

>> 	sfp: sfp@e8000 {
>> 		compatible = "fsl,p2041-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";
>> 		reg	   = <0xe8000 0x1000>;
>> 	};
> 
> None of the seem to be documented either btw:
> rg fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p5020si-post.dtsi
> 371:		compatible = "fsl,p5020-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";
> 
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p2041si-post.dtsi
> 339:		compatible = "fsl,p2041-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";
> 
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p4080si-post.dtsi
> 386:		compatible = "fsl,p4080-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";
> 
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p3041si-post.dtsi
> 366:		compatible = "fsl,p3041-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";
> 
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p5040si-post.dtsi
> 331:		compatible = "fsl,p5040-sfp", "fsl,qoriq-sfp-1.0";

Yeah. As noted in the next patch, someone with access to the TA 1.0 manual
would need to have a look.

--Sean

>> 
>> but in either case, it is desirable for the driver to match based on the
>> more-specific compatible (as well as the less-specific compatible) as we
>> already have enough information from the more-specific compatible to
>> select the correct implementation.
>> 
>> --Sean