Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: i3c: svc: add compatible string i3c: silvaco,i3c-target-v1

Conor Dooley
2024-01-17T08:40:04Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2021 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:33:48AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/01/2024 10:30, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 08:24:20AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 16/01/2024 03:29, Frank Li wrote:
> >>>>> Patches were accepted after discussion, what you ponit to. So I
> >>>>> think everyone agree on the name 'silvaco,i3c-master-v1'.
> >>>>> I plan send next version to fix auto build error. Any additional
> >>>>> comments about this?
> >>>>
> >>>> I still do not see how did you address Rob's comment and his point is
> >>>> valid. You just did not reply to it.
> >>>
> >>> See https://lore.kernel.org/imx/ZXCiaKfMYYShoiXK@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810/
> >>
> >> First of all, that's not the answer to Rob's email, but some other
> >> thread which is 99% ignored by Rob (unless he has filters for
> >> "@Rob"...). Therefore no, it does not count as valid answer.
> >>
> >> Second, explanation does not make sense. There is no argument granting
> >> you exception from SoC specific compatibles.
> >
> > The patch could have been applied two months ago had Frank done as
> > was requested (multiple times). I don't understand the resistance
> > towards doing so given the process has taken way way longer as a result.
>
> I think that Rob's comment was just skipped and original master binding
> was merged without addressing it. I don't want to repeat the same
> process for the "target". Indeed I could point this earlier... if I only
> knew that Rob pointed out that issue.

Oh I think I got confused here. The context for this mail led me to
think that this was still trying to push the i3c-master-v1 stuff through
and I was commenting on my frustration with the resistance to applying
the feedback received. I didn't realise that this was for another
patch adding a target.

I think you already said it, but NAK to adding any more compatibles here
until the soc-specific compatible that was asked for for the imx93 is
added.

Thanks,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 111 bytes --]