On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 04:46:20PM +0000, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote: > > > + The reason I want to keep it xen specific at the moment as we had some > > plan to extended the device-id usage in the spec which hasn't progressed > > a bit(I must admit that before you ask), and this addition should not be > > obstruct that future development. If we align with what we define xen > > specific as part of $subject work, we can always define generic binding > > in the future and slowly make the other obsolete over the time. > > IIUC you have some plans to provide device_id support to the device-tree > bindings from your side. Maybe we can discuss some of your plans here > and we can come up with the generic device-id binding? > So I will have something to base on in Xen. > Sorry if I wasn't clear in earlier emails. What I mentioned was that I would like to reserve the generic namespace(i.e. just device-id) for generic SCMI usage. Since we haven't defined it clearly in the spec, I don't want to introduce the generic definition and binding now. As mentioned earlier, though Xen definition and generic once may be exactly same, but we won't know until then. So keep the xen usage and namespace separate for now to avoid any future conflicts. -- Regards, Sudeep
