Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dt-bindings: media: Document bindings for HDMI RX Controller

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 25/07/2024 08:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 24/07/2024 15:20, Johan Jonker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Where did you learn that? Having non-SoC specific generic fallback
>>> compatibles is pretty much standard throughout the kernel. See for
>>> example these RK3588 DesignWare compatibles:
>>>
>>> Synopsys Serial Controller:
>>>     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml
>>>     compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-uart", "snps,dw-apb-uart";
>>
>> Compatible method #2:
>> 	{ .compatible = "snps,dw-apb-uart", .data = &dw8250_dw_apb },
>>
>>>
>>> Synopsys USB3 Controller:
>>>     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/rockchip,dwc3.yaml
>>>     compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-dwc3", "snps,dwc3";
>>
>> Compatible method #2:
>> 	{
>> 		.compatible = "snps,dwc3"
>> 	},
>>
>>>
>>> Synopsys Ethernet Controller:
>>>     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/snps,dwmac.yaml
>>>     compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-gmac", "snps,dwmac-4.20a";
>>
>> Compatible method #1:
>> 	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-gmac", .data = &rk3588_ops },
>>
>> 	    of_device_is_compatible(np, "snps,dwmac-4.20a") ||
>>
>>>
>>> Synsopsys SATA Controller:
>>>     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ata/rockchip,dwc-ahci.yaml
>>>     compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-dwc-ahci", "snps,dwc-ahci"
>>
>> Compatible method #2:
>> 	{ .compatible = "snps,dwc-ahci", &ahci_dwc_plat },
>>
>>>
>>> It's also not specific to Synopsys (but RK3588 has a lot of Synopsys
>>> design incl. the HDMI-RX IP currently worked on by Shreeya). Here
>>> are some other examples:
>>>
>>> ARM Mali GPU:
>>>     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml
>>>     compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-mali", "arm,mali-valhall-csf";
>>
>> Should be compatible method #2:
>> 	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-mali" },
>> 	{ .compatible = "arm,mali-valhall-csf" },
>>
>> This is wrong!
> 
> Except that it is pointless and redundant, why is it wrong? You did not
> bring any argument, except "will trigger 2 probes" which is clearly false.
> 
>> Each strings will trigger a probe.
> 
> What? That's not true.

Although if you meant "any string will trigger one probe in total", then
it would be true, so maybe that's what you meant.

But then - what's wrong with this (except needless redundancy)? You did
not bring any argument but keep calling more than once "wrong". So what
is wrong?

Best regards,
Krzysztof