On 11/04/2024 13:57, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 11/04/2024 11:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/04/2024 12:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2024 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible")
>>>>>>>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci
>>>>>>>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire
>>>>>>> history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/#3195094
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same
>>>>> thread as I linked. What does it prove?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we
>>>> talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver.
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/#3195327
>>>
>>> Konrad pointed out we don't need a new compat because the sm8250 compat
>>> string could be reused.
>>
>> Where did he point that? I see only comment about driver, not bindings.
>> Please point me to his comment (and again, not patchwork which gives you
>> entire discussion and no one knows to which comment you refer, but lore
>> link which leads to specific one email where Konrad said it).
>
> Konrad made a comment about the compat string in the driver, I looked at
> the yaml and realised I could reuse the compat string.
For the driver. The YAML was correct, wasn't it? It got reviewed and it
was about entirely different SoC, not sm8250. You cannot use sm8250 as
sc8280xp in the binding. These SoCs do not share anything.
>
> Then asked for a reversion of the add.
>
> I still think this is the right thing to do, no ?
So if IIUC, the misunderstanding was about the driver/binding.
Then no, binding should have been dropped.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
