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

Frank Li
2024-01-16T21:31:43Z

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:56:03PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/01/2024 21:44, Frank Li wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:30:24PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 16/01/2024 20:13, Frank Li wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 06:23:09PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:35:44PM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:48:08AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is it okay for 'silvaco,i3c-target-imx93'?
> >>
> >> No, because imx93 is product of NXP, not Silvaco.
> >>
> >> You need regular SoC-block compatibles, just like we have for all other
> >> snps, dwc and cdns.
> >
> > "nxp,imx93-svc-i3c-target" ?
>
> Could be, now please point me to patch adding such code to DTS. I would
> like to see the real use case for it.

This part have not sent to review yet. basically in imx93evk.dts add

&i3c1 {
compatible = "silvaco,i3c-target-v1";
pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i3c1>;
pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i3c1>;
status = "okay"
}

>
> > Just little bit strange for binding file name
> > is silvaco,i3c-master.yaml.
>
> Many other bindings do it. I don't see a problem in creating device
> specific schema sharing some parts, if you have some common pieces.
>
> >
> > look like "dwc,*" compatitble string's file name is "dwc,*".yaml.
>
> ? I don't understand how is this related, but if this is what you want
> to discuss then look:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,dwc3.yaml
>
> or many other examples. Please open dwc, snps and cdns bindings and look
> how it is done there.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof