On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:09:45AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 05:44:56PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > Quote Sudeep's reply" > > I am not blocking you. What I mentioned is I don't agree that DT can be used > > to resolve this issue, but I don't have time or alternate solution ATM. So > > if you propose DT based solution and the maintainers agree for the proposed > > bindings I will take a look and help you to make that work. But I will raise > > any objections I may have if the proposal has issues mainly around the > > compatibility and ease of maintenance. > > " > > This all looks to me like SCMI has failed to provide common interfaces. > We can look into this if having such common interface can solve this problem. > I'm indifferent. If everyone involved thinks adding compatibles will > solve whatever the issues are, then it's going to be fine with me > (other than the issue above). It doesn't seem like you have that, so I > don't know that I'd keep going down this path. Sorry if I was ambiguous with my stance as quoted above. For me, 2 devices pointing to the same node seems implementation issue rather than fixing/ working around by extending DT bindings like this $subject patch is attempting. If you disagree with that and think 2 devices in the kernel shouldn't point to the same device tree node, then yes I see this is right approach to take. ATM I don't know which is correct and what are other developer's include DT maintainer opinion on this. I just didn't like the way Peng was trying to solve it with some block/allow list which wouldn't have fixed the issue or just created new ones. -- Regards, Sudeep
