On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:40:11PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 07:05:08PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 11:02:04AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > >On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 03:13:30PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > >> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > >> > > >> There are two cases: > > >> pinctrl-scmi.c and pinctrl-imx-scmi.c, both use SCMI_PROTOCOL_PINCTRL. > > >> If both drivers are built in, and the scmi device with name "pinctrl-imx" > > >> is created earlier, and the fwnode device points to the scmi device, > > >> non-i.MX platforms will never have the pinctrl supplier ready. > > >> > > >> Vendor A use 0x80 for feature X, Vendor B use 0x80 for feature Y. > > >> With both drivers built in, two scmi devices will be created, and both > > >> drivers will be probed. On A's patform, feature Y probe may fail, vice > > >> verus. > > >> > > >> Introduce machine_allowlist and machine_blocklist to allow or block > > >> the creation of scmi devices to address above issues. > > >> > > >> machine_blocklist is non-vendor protocols, but vendor has its own > > >> implementation. Saying need to block pinctrl-scmi.c on i.MX95. > > >> machine_allowlist is for vendor protocols. Saying vendor A drivers only > > >> allow vendor A machine, vendor B machines only allow vendor B machine. > > >> > > > > > >I think patches 2-4 should be combined into one patch. This commit > > > > They are in different subsystems, so I separate them. > > > > I mean if the i.MX driver prevents the generic driver from working then > we need a Fixes tag. It really makes it simpler to understand and backport > if they're sent as one patch. Normally we would collect Acks from the > maintainers who're involved and but still do it as one patch. > Wait. Just to be clear. Does PATCH 1/4 fix that bug so that when both are built-in then the generic driver works? This is in some ways an alternative way to fix the same bug as well as being a cleanup? regards, dan carpenter