On 10/04/2024 15:22, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > On 4/10/24 11:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 10/04/2024 09:49, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>> Qualcomm SM8650 SoC has three CCI controllers with two I2C busses >>> connected to each of them. >>> >>> The CCI controllers on SM8650 are compatible with the ones found on >>> many other older generations of Qualcomm SoCs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> The change is based and depends on a patch series from Jagadeesh Kona: >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20240321092529.13362-1-quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> It might be an option to add this change right to the series, >>> since it anyway requires a respin. >>> >>> A new compatible value "qcom,sm8650-cci" is NOT added to >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml , because >>> the controller IP description and selection is covered by a generic >>> compatible value "qcom,msm8996-cci". >> >> I do not understand this reasoning. So you introduce known errors >> because errors are ok? >> >> How does it pass dtbs_check validation? > > To continue the technical discussion let me ask you to comment on the > absolutely identical subject, which has been taken in the past in connection > to "qcom,sc8280xp-cci" compatible, probably it didn't attact any sufficient > attention before, so let's continue now. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/0a3cd2f3-85e9-4769-9749-62353e842625@xxxxxxxxxx/ You mix topics. First, you cannot send patch which knowingly introduces errors, regardless these are build errors or dtbs_check errors. Plus checkpatch also complains about it. Second, you linked to a driver discussion, but we talk here about bindings. Not driver. Each binding must be documented. Now, about driver, there is no single point nor need to add there duplicated entry, that's why we don't add. Best regards, Krzysztof
