On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 05:19:53PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: >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. With compatible string, no need block/allow list anymore I think. But honestly I have not spend efforts on do driver changes to support compatible string. If in the end we all agree on the proposal, I could start on driver changes. Thanks, Peng > >-- >Regards, >Sudeep
