On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:56:03PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 16/01/2024 21:44, Frank Li wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:30:24PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 16/01/2024 20:13, Frank Li wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 06:23:09PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > >>>> 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'? > >> > >> No, because imx93 is product of NXP, not Silvaco. > >> > >> You need regular SoC-block compatibles, just like we have for all other > >> snps, dwc and cdns. > > > > "nxp,imx93-svc-i3c-target" ? > > Could be, now please point me to patch adding such code to DTS. I would > like to see the real use case for it. This part have not sent to review yet. basically in imx93evk.dts add &i3c1 { compatible = "silvaco,i3c-target-v1"; pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep"; pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_i3c1>; pinctrl-1 = <&pinctrl_i3c1>; status = "okay" } > > > Just little bit strange for binding file name > > is silvaco,i3c-master.yaml. > > Many other bindings do it. I don't see a problem in creating device > specific schema sharing some parts, if you have some common pieces. > > > > > look like "dwc,*" compatitble string's file name is "dwc,*".yaml. > > ? I don't understand how is this related, but if this is what you want > to discuss then look: > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,dwc3.yaml > > or many other examples. Please open dwc, snps and cdns bindings and look > how it is done there. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
