On 11/04/2024 17:55, Nikunj Kela wrote: > > On 4/11/2024 8:44 AM, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:24:02AM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>> On 4/10/2024 10:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 10/04/2024 18:55, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>>>> If there are no more questions on this and everyone is on the same page, >>>>> I would like to conclude this thread in favor of using a new DT property >>>>> 'qcom,firmware-managed-resources'. >>>> Just to recap my earlier statement, because I am not sure if I got the >>>> answer (if answer was provided, then I don't forgot... sorry): >>>> >>>> This is a new hardware, so you have a new compatible, therefore any >>>> additional property is not needed. >>> This is not a new HW, this is the same HW with different FW and interface to >>> FW is different too. As you can see earlier discussion on this thread, new >>> compatible was ruled out since it is the same HW IP. >> Can you link me to the post that ruled it out please? > > Hi, There was difference of opinion. While Ulf was in favor of new > compatible however Srini was against it since it is the same HW IP. > Please check the link [1] in the same thread and subsequent discussion > on the same. To resolve this difference, Qualcomm and Linaro had a > discussion and it was decided to go with vendor specific DT property. > > [1]: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAPDyKFrL2QcB-YbE25smGgJjf3iBEsSSB4ui3V98zJKghNNhKA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Just to clarify: Ulf agreed on compatible way for proof of concept and asked to send a code so everyone can understand better what you are making. I don't recall any Linaro policy or answer. After above email, other people proposed other solutions and disagreed with that statement, so no, you do not have a consensus. Trying to present this as a consensus if way exaggerated. You have no conclusion, because talk is cheap and this thread is way too big. It's also way to vague, like we had to poke you for several emails to get hardware description. I still don't recall it, but TBH, I am not going to look at 50 email thread for one email. Therefore, feel free to propose something, but if you call it "that was the consensus from community" then please already add there my Nacked-by, because there was no consensus. In your proposal finally describe your hardware, firmware and problem which you are solving (because no one will be going back to this thread). Best regards, Krzysztof
