Hi Rob, Cristian,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set
> additionalProperties to true
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:09:46AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:01 AM Cristian Marussi
> > <cristian.marussi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:25:10AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Peng,
> > >
> > > I dont think in the following you will find the solution to the
> > > problem, it is just to recap the situation and constraints around
> > > vendor protocol bindings.
> > >
> > > Describing SCMI vendors protocols is tricky because while on one
> > > side the protocol node has to be rooted under the main scmi fw DT
> > > node (like all the standard protocols) and be 'derived' from the
> > > arm,scmi.yaml protocol-node definition, the optional additional
> > > properties of the a specific vendor protocol nodes can be customized
> > > by each single vendor, and since, as you said, you can have multiple
> > > protocols from different vendors sharing the same protocol number,
> > > you could have multiple disjoint sets of valid properties allowed
> > > under that same protocol node number; so on one side you have to
> > > stick to some basic protocol-node defs and be rooted under the SCMI
> > > node, while on the other side you will have multiple possibly
> > > allowed sets of additional properties to check against, so IOW you cannot
> anyway just set additionalProperties to false since that will result in no checks
> at all.
> > >
> > > As a consequence, at runtime, in the final DTB shipped with a
> > > specific platform you should have only one of the possible vendor
> > > nodes for each of these overlapping protocols, and the SCMI core at
> > > probe time will pick the proper protocol implementation based on the
> > > vendor/sub_vendor IDs gathered from the running SCMI fw platform at
> > > init: this way you can just build the usual "all-inclusive"
> > > defconfig without worrying about vendor protocol clashes since the
> > > SCMI core can pick the right protocol implementation, you should
> > > just had taken care to provide the proper DTB for your protocol; BUT
> > > this also means that it is not possible to add multiple DT bindings
> > > based on a 'if vendor' condition since the vendor itself is NOT
> > > defined and not needed in the bindings since it is discoverable at runtime.
> > >
> > > So, after all of this blabbing of mine about this, I am wondering if
> > > it is not possible that the solution is to handle each and every
> > > vendor protocol node that appears with a block of addtional
> > > properties that are picked via a oneOf statement from some external
> > > vendor specific yaml.
> > > (...in a similar way to how pinctrl additional properties are
> > > added...)
> > >
> > >
> > > NOTE THAT the following is just an example of what I mean, it is
> > > certainly wrong, incomplete annd maybe just not acceptable (and
> > > could cause DT maintainers eyes to bleed :P)...
> > >
> > > ...so it is just fr the sake of explaining what I mean...
> > >
> > > diff --git
> > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > index e9d3f043c4ed..3c38a1e3ffed 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > @@ -278,6 +278,22 @@ properties:
> > > required:
> > > - reg
> > >
> > > + protocol@81:
> > > + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node'
> > > + unevaluatedProperties: false
> > > +
> > > + properties:
> > > + reg:
> > > + const: 0x81
> > > +
> > > + patternProperties:
> > > + '$':
> > > + type: object
> >
> > Did you mean to have child nodes under the protocol node rather than in it?
>
> ... nope ... it is just as bad as my yaml-fu is :P ... but not sure if vendors has
> also this needs or plain props will suffice...
>
> >
> > > + oneOf:
> > > + - $ref: /schemas/vendor-A/scmi-protos.yaml#
> > > + - $ref: /schemas/vendor-B/protos.yaml#
> >
> > Moved up one level, this would work, but it would have to be an
> > 'anyOf' because it is possible that 2 vendors have the exact same set
> > of properties.
> >
I try this:
protocol@84:
anyOf:
- $ref: /schemas/firmware/imx,scmi.yaml#
- $ref: /schemas/firmware/vendor-B,scmi.yaml#
but unevaluatedProperties could not be set to false, otherwise the
example check will report
reg is unevaluated, fsl,wakeup-sources is unevaluated.
The imx,scmi.yaml is as below:
properties:
protocol@84:
$ref: 'arm,scmi.yaml#/$defs/protocol-node'
unevaluatedProperties: false
description:
The MISC Protocol is for managing SoC Misc settings, such as GPR settings
properties:
reg:
const: 0x84
fsl,wakeup-sources:
description:
Each entry consists of 2 integers, represents the source and electric signal edge
items:
items:
- description: the wakeup source
- description: the wakeup electric signal edge
minItems: 1
maxItems: 32
$ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-matrix
required:
- reg
additionalProperties: true
Is the upper ok?
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> ok
>
> > I can think of 2 other ways to structure this.
> >
> > First, is a specific vendor protocol discoverable? Not that is 0x81
> > protocol present, but that 0x81 is vendor Foo's extra special
> > value-add protocol? If not, I think we should require a compatible
> > string on vendor protocols. Then the base SCMI schema can require just
> > that, and each vendor protocol defines its node with a $ref to
> > '#/$defs/protocol-node'.
>
> Basically yes it is discoverable, since at runtime the SCMI core, early on,
> normally discovers the vendor_id/sub_vendor_id by querying the platform
> via Base protocol and then later only loads/initializes (by closest match) the
> vendor protocols that are present in the DT AND that has been 'tagged' at
> compile time with the same vendor_id/sub_vendor_id tuple (in the vendor
> module code, struct scmi_protocol)
>
> Of course you should take care to put the proper protocol@81 node in your
> vendor_A DTB for the vendor_A SCMI driver to make use of the additional
> vendor_A properties that you have defined under your node as referred in
> your vendor-protos.yaml...if you botch that up I will load a protocol and call
> your vendor_A driver with a vendor_X DT node.
>
> DT is currrently vendor-agnostic.
>
> >
> > The 2nd way is just a variation of the oneOf above, but do we do 1
> > file per vendor protocol or 1 file per vendor. Either should be
> > doable, just a matter of where 'protocol@81', etc. are defined.
> >
>
> Oh, yes mine was just an ill example...one file per vendor will do just
> fine: the important thing is that the list and the yaml itself can be extended as
> new vendors appears (in a backward compatble way of course)
>
> Thanks,
> Cristian
