Re: [PATCH] Revert "Revert "dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible""

[Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@nexus-software.ie>]

On 11/04/2024 12:57, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 11/04/2024 11:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/04/2024 12:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2024 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document 
>>>>>>>> sc8280xp compatible")
>>>>>>>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci
>>>>>>>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on 
>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>> history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195094
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same
>>>>> thread as I linked. What does it prove?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we
>>>> talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver.
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195327
>>>
>>> Konrad pointed out we don't need a new compat because the sm8250 compat
>>> string could be reused.
>>
>> Where did he point that? I see only comment about driver, not bindings.
>> Please point me to his comment (and again, not patchwork which gives you
>> entire discussion and no one knows to which comment you refer, but lore
>> link which leads to specific one email where Konrad said it).
> 
> Konrad made a comment about the compat string in the driver, I looked at 
> the yaml and realised I could reuse the compat string.
> 
> Then asked for a reversion of the add.
> 
> I still think this is the right thing to do, no ?
> 
> ---
> bod
> 

OK I see the confusion.

I forgot to fix the compat string in the submitted dtsi.

commit 7cfa2e758bf4d56e0db5587a88db01ee6fffa259
Author: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu Jan 11 17:15:56 2024 +0000

+               cci0: cci@ac4a000 {
+                       compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-cci"

That should be "qcom,sm8250-cci" since there was no need for a separate 
8280xp compat string.

---
bod