Re: [PATCH v7 6/6] clk: scmi: Add i.MX95 OEM extension support for SCMI clock driver

[Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>]

On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 04:44:22PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Cristian,
> 

Hi,

> Thanks for reviewing!
> 
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 10:02:04AM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 06:12:53PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> >> +
> >> +struct scmi_clk_oem_info {
> >> +	char *vendor_id;
> >> +	char *sub_vendor_id;
> >> +	char *compatible;
> >
> >I suppose different OEM per impl_ver is overkill...and maybe better
> >to be trated as a bug if it happens leveraging the Quirk framework..
> 
> Hope I not get you wrong. impl_ver is not used here.
> compatible is machine compatible string.
> 

Yes.
> The OEM matching introduced in this patch is strictly based
> on SCMI vendor_id and sub_vendor_id as reported by the firmware. There is no
> dependency on impl_ver, nor do we intend to distinguish OEM behavior based on
> implementation version.
> 

Ok, good, I was just checking my understanding was correct and we are on
the same page and this is how you intended to use all of the above..

> If in the future any firmware shows inconsistent behavior across different
> impl_ver, we agree that this should be treated as a firmware bug and
> handled through the existing SCMI quirk framework.
> 

Ok.

> I could add a comment for the structure in next version:
> /*
>  * Selection is based on SCMI vendor_id/sub_vendor_id and optional machine
>  * comaptible string, without involving impl_ver. impl_ver‑specific behavior
>  * should be handled via the SCMI Quirk framework

maybe...

    "should be considered a bug and handled via SCMI Quirk..."

BUT I have no strong opinion about the need of this comment...do it as you
wish, with or without for me is fine.

Thanks,
Cristian