On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:35:44PM -0500, Frank Li wrote: > 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'? I don't know. Is the device in question capable of also operating in master mode? I have no idea from the commit message since it contains zero information on the hardware. If the exact same controller can operate in master and target mode, having two compatibles for the same device does not seem okay to me. Also, "silvaco" does not make the imx93 so that is not a suitable vendor prefix. If the imx93 only supports i3c IPs in target mode, I would call it "<vendorofimx>,imx93-i3c" with "silvaco,i3c-target-v1" as a fallback. Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
