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.
