On 08/04/2024 01:50, Peng Fan wrote: >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set >> additionalProperties to true >> >> On 07/04/2024 12:04, Peng Fan wrote: >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set >>>> additionalProperties to true >>>> >>>> On 07/04/2024 02:37, Peng Fan wrote: >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set >>>>>> additionalProperties to true >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/04/2024 14:39, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: >>>>>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When adding vendor extension protocols, there is dt-schema warning: >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> imx,scmi.example.dtb: scmi: 'protocol@81', 'protocol@84' do not >>>>>>> match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+' >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Set additionalProperties to true to address the issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not see anything addressed here, except making the binding >>>>>> accepting anything anywhere... >>>>> >>>>> I not wanna add vendor protocols in arm,scmi.yaml, so will introduce >>>>> a new yaml imx.scmi.yaml which add i.MX SCMI protocol extension. >>>>> >>>>> With additionalProperties set to false, I not know how, please suggest. >>>> >>>> First of all, you cannot affect negatively existing devices (their >>>> bindings) and your patch does exactly that. This should make you >>>> thing what is the correct approach... >>>> >>>> Rob gave you the comment about missing compatible - you still did not >>>> address that. >>> >>> I added the compatible in patch 2/6 in the examples "compatible = >> "arm,scmi";" >> >> So you claim that your vendor extensions are the same or fully compatible >> with arm,scmi and you add nothing... Are your extensions/protocol valid for >> arm,scmi? > > Yes. They are valid for arm,scmi. > > If yes, why is this in separate binding. If no, why you use someone >> else's compatible? > > Per SCMI Spec > 0x80-0xFF: Reserved for vendor or platform-specific extensions to > this interface > > i.MX use 0x81 for BBM, 0x84 for MISC. But other vendors will use > the id for their own protocol. So how are they valid for arm,scmi? I don't understand. Best regards, Krzysztof
