On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 11:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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]-.*$" > is needed for that. It's true that 'p' is simpler than '[a-z]' but if > this results in new commit next time we have sa8995r, then benefit is lost. Ok, let's drop it, I will just update the qcom-soc.yaml to handle sar21330p via the "^qcom,(sa|sar|sc)8[0-9]+[a-z][a-z]?-.*$" > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > -- With best wishes Dmitry
