Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Add machine_allowlist and machine_blocklist

[Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:46:27PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>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?

patch 1/4 is not related to the pinctrl stuff. It could be a standalone
patch, I put it in this patchset, just because all are related to fwdevlink.

Thanks,
Peng

>
>regards,
>dan carpenter
>