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

Frank Li
2024-01-16T17:36:12Z

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'?

Frank

>
> Thanks,
> Conor.