Hi Krzysztof, > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set > additionalProperties to true > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set > > additionalProperties to true > > > > On 08/04/2024 08:08, Peng Fan wrote: > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set > > >> additionalProperties to true > > >> > > >> 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. > > > > > > arm,scmi is a firmware compatible string. The protocol node is a sub-node. > > > I think the arm,scmi is that saying the firmware following SCMI spec > > > to implement the protocols. > > > > > > For vendor reserved ID, firmware also follow the SCMI spec to > > > implement their own usage, so from firmware level, it is ARM SCMI > > > spec > > compatible. > > > > That's not the point. It is obvious that your firmware is compatible > > with arm,scmi, but what you try to say in this and revised patch is > > that every arm,scmi is compatible with your implementation. What you > > are saying is that 0x84 is MISC protocol for every firmware, Qualcomm, > > NXP, Samsung, TI, Mediatek etc. > > > > I claim it is not true. 0x84 is not MISC for Qualcomm, for example. > > You are right. I am lost now on how to add vendor ID support, using > arm,scmi.yaml or adding a new imx,scmi.yaml or else. Do you have any suggestions on how to add vendor protocol in dt-schema? I am not sure what to do next, still keep imx,scmi.yaml or add vendor stuff in arm,scmi.yaml? Thanks, Peng. > > Please suggest. > > Thanks, > Peng > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof
