On 01/11/2024 09:52, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:37:23AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 01/11/2024 08:47, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:49:22AM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> The patterns for individual SoC families grew up to be pretty complex, >>>>> containing lots of special cases and optional suffixes. Split them per >>>>> the suffix to make it easier to extend SoC patterns. >>>> >>>> This is doing something quite different - split is not important here. >>>> Instead you narrow the patterns significantly and disallow things like >>>> msm8994pro, sc8280p or sc8280px, and allow things like sa5200p. >>> >>> Just for the sake of correctness, msm8994pro is still allowed, if I'm >>> not mistaken. >>> >>>> I don't see here much of pattern simplifying - dropping (pro)? really >>>> makes little difference. >>> >>> Patterns are simplified by being explicit. E.g. in the previous >>> iteration I completely didn't notice the intersection of the |p that I >>> have added with the existing [a-z][a-z]? pattern. If you think that >>> sa5200p should be disallowed, I can tune the numeric part of the >>> pattern. And sc8280p / sc8280px should not be allowed in the first >>> place, such platforms don't exist. >> >> I am fine with this, but extend the commit msg with some good rationale. >> Have in mind that the point of this pattern was *not* to validate SoCs >> names. sa5200p is fine, sc8180p is fine and all others are fine, sc8280z >> as well, because we do not want to grow this pattern with every new model. >> >> The only, single point of this entire binding is to disallow incorrect >> order of block names in compatible. Not validate the SoC names. If you >> need narrower patterns to achieve that objective, sure. If you need >> narrower patterns to validate SoC names, then nope. > > I need narrower patterns to simplify adding new SoCs. > Another option is to define a mega-pattern like > qcom,(msm|sm|sd[am]|.....)[0-9]+[a-z]*-.* . Frankly speaking I'm fine > with that approach too. I do not see how narrower patterns, changing: "^qcom,(sa|sc)8[0-9]+[a-z][a-z]?-.*$" into pattern: "^qcom,sa[0-9]+p-.*$" instead of pattern: "^qcom,sa[0-9]+[a-z]-.*$" is needed for that. It's true that 'p' is simpler than '[a-z]' but if this results in new commit next time we have sa8995r, then benefit is lost. Best regards, Krzysztof
