On 01/06/2023 11:51, zhuyinbo wrote: >>> Yes, it is make sense as it can reduce the workload of the community. >>> For the Loongson platform, the versions of spi peripherals are almost >>> the same, except for a few or individual SoCs. And we have also >>> discussed compatible internally, and we tend to define it this way. >> >> So you have chosen different path than what's clearly recommended by >> community, existing experience and documentation: >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst#L42 >> >> Family names are not accepted as specific compatibles. Whenever they >> were accepted, it lead to problems. All the time. > > > Thank you for your documentation and advice and the Loongson platform > have loongson-2h (ls2h), loongson-2k (ls2k), loongson-2p (ls2p) or other > series SoC, which loongson-2 seems to be the family name you mentioned > and the "loongson,ls2k-spi" should be a speific compatible name. > >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220822181701.GA89665-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/78651e07-6b3e-4243-8e1f-fcd1dfb3ffe1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/288f56ba9cfad46354203b7698babe91@xxxxxxxx/ >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/106e443a-e765-51fe-b556-e4e7e2aa771c@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> and many many more discussions. >> >> You should choose carefully, because we will keep NAK-ing adding >> properties to circumvent missing compatibles. > > > I have read the documention and patch link that you mentioned and it > seems to advice that We don't have wildcard names in the compatible > string and use wildcard names that will cause issue. and the compatible > "loongson,ls2k-spi" that wasn't a wildcard names, and if the loongson-2k > spi controller hardware upgraded or changed the I will use > "loongson,ls2k-spi-version" as a compatible, such as, > "loongson,ls2k-spi-v1.1", "loongson,ls2k-spi-v1.1a" or other. Versions? Why? They received a lot of comments in the past, let me just paste to avoid repeating the same: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220926231238.GA3132756-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/ (and many more discussions on devicetree mailing list) > >>> >>>> Or am I misunderstanding and all ls2k SoCs do work with this driver and >>>> you were talking about other, future products? >>> >>> Actually, in 2k500 has one special type spi was only one cs and their's >>> register definition was different from common type spi thus this driver >>> doesn't support but this driver can support another common type spi in >>> 2k500. for this special type spi I will add support as needed in the >>> future. >> >> Bindings are for hardware, not driver. What does your driver support or >> does not, matters less. > > > okay, I got it, and the loongson spi bindings was for loongson spi > controller hardware. if the spi controller hardware not changed in > different ls2k SoC and the spi compatible should be same thus loongson > spi compatible seems to be adhere to the bindings aggrement. Specific compatible - yes. Unspecific - not, because you disregard the clear message in the guideline. Best regards, Krzysztof
