On 11/04/2024 12:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 11/04/2024 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible")
>>>>>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci
>>>>>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire
>>>>> history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/#3195094
>>>>
>>>> We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat.
>>>
>>> I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same
>>> thread as I linked. What does it prove?
>>>
>>
>> And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we
>> talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver.
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/#3195327
>
> Konrad pointed out we don't need a new compat because the sm8250 compat
> string could be reused.
Where did he point that? I see only comment about driver, not bindings.
Please point me to his comment (and again, not patchwork which gives you
entire discussion and no one knows to which comment you refer, but lore
link which leads to specific one email where Konrad said it).
>
> So, I don't believe this revert should be reverted and I do believe Vlad
> needs his own compat string because his clock list isn't supported.
That's a new argument and no one mentioned it before...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
