On 24-04-08 08:30:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 08/04/2024 08:04, Abel Vesa wrote: > > On 24-04-07 19:07:03, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 07:23:21PM +0300, Abel Vesa wrote: > >>> Add dedicated schema for X1E80100 PMIC ARB (v7) as it allows multiple > >>> buses by declaring them as child nodes. > >>> > >> > >> But is this really a "dedicated schema for X1E80100"? Isn't it "the > >> schema for all multi-bus controllers"? > >> > >> I.e. isn't this a "dedicated schema for all platforms starting with > >> SM8450"? > > > > Suggestion was from Krzysztof to add platform specific comaptible (and > > therefore schema). Since the first platform that will support in > > upstream proper multi bus is the x1e80100, the schema needs to bear the > > same name as the compatible. When support for multi bus will be added to > > the other platforms (including the SM8450), they will use the fallback > > compatible of the x1e80100 and will be documented in this newly added > > schema. We did the same thing with some PHYs drivers, IIRC. > > > >> > >> Can you please use the commit message to document the actual reason why > >> you choose to create a dedicated schema for this? Is it simply to avoid > >> having to schema with either pmics or multiple buses as children? > > > > I can re-send the patchset with such a phrase in commit message. > > > > One of the early versions of this patchset was actually submitting a > > generic compatible for multi bus, but I remember that there was a > > request for following the platform dedicated approach. > > > > Krzysztof, can you please provide here the argument for why that is > > preferred? > > I could not find such suggestions from my side in the archives, except: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/dd86117e-0196-499b-b8b3-efe4013cbc07@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > where I want SoC specific compatibles to be used, not versions. > > Now about this binding, it is not a schema for all platforms starting > with sm8450, but only for x1e. I do not understand why this would be a > problem? > I agree, I don't think there is a problem with that. At some point, all platforms starting with sm8450 will be added and then we can even make the sm8450 compatible as the fallback comaptible. > If you ask why this is not a schema for all platforms, then because: > 1. maybe no one tested other SoCs? > 2. maybe no one cares? > 3. maybe other boards need some quirks, so this would be applicable but > not fully? > > I don't know... since when do we add "generic schemas"? > The focus of this patchset is support on X Elite which implicitly needs multi bus support. Again, we can do the other ones later on. I don't think we should extend the focus of this patchset more that it already is. > However maybe the question is different: why other devices are not > described here, while they should? Then probably Abel can answer what he > wants and what he does not want to describe. There is no requirement to > model all possible hardware in a binding, but instead describe one > hardware, so x1e, fully. > I'll switch the older platforms as well in a separate patchset, I promise. But let's not delay this any longer. > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
