On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 15:45:44 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/01/2023 16:54, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 16:07:35 +0100 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 07/01/2023 16:01, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > >>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:09:24 +0100 > >>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 07/01/2023 15:07, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 15:00:56 +0100 > >>>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>> I asked to remove half-compatible. Not to enforce. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> so you are saying that allowing > >>>>> compatible = "A", "B" > >>>>> is not ok, if B is not fully compatible. I agree with that > >>>>> one. > >>>> > >>>> I did not say that. It's not related to this problem. > >>>> > >>> You said "I asked to remove half-compatible" that means to me > >>> remove "B" if not fully compatible with A which sounds sane to me. > >>> > >>>> Again - you cannot have device which is and is not compatible with > >>>> something else. It's not a Schroedinger's cat to be in two states, > >>>> unless you explicitly document the cases (there are exception). If this > >>>> is such exception, it requires it's own documentation. > >>>> > >>> so conclusion: > >>> If having A and B half-compatible with A: > >>> > >>> compatible = "A" only: is allowed to specifiy it the binding (status quo), > >>> but not allowed to make the actual dtsi match the binding documentation > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/72e1194e10ccb4f87aed96265114f0963e805092.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >>> and > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210924091439.2561931-5-andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >>> > >>> compatible = "A", "B" in the binding definition: is not allowed ("I asked to remove > >>> half-compatible" (= removing B)) > >> > >> No, half compatible is the A in such case. > >> > > I think that there is some misunderstanding in here. I try once again. > > > > Define compatible with "X" here: > > To me it means: > > > > device fully works with flags defined in: > > > > static const struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_X_data = { ... }; > > > > with usdhc_X_data referenced in > > { .compatible = "X", .data = &usdhc_X_data, }, > > > > > > So if there is only "A" matching with above definition of compatibility > > compatible = "A" would sound sane to me. > > > > And scrutinizing the flags more and not just wanting to achieve error-free > > dtbs_check, I think is this in most cases where there is only "A". > > > > If there is "A" and "B" which match that compatibility definition, you > > say that only compatible = "A", "B" is allowed, but not compatible = "A". > > In that case I would have no problem with that. > > > > But if there is only "A" but no "B" matching the above definition, I would expect > > that only compatible = "A" is allowed but *not* compatible = "A", "B". > > Sorry, I don't follow. I also do not understand what "matching" means in > these terms (binding driver? of_match?) and also I do not know what is > the "above definition". > > Devicetree spec defines the compatibility - so this is the definition. > There will be differences when applying it to different cases. > Ok, lets stop talking about A and B, lets be more specific. Hmm, I try to insert the missing bits here: I am not convinced anymore that my patch is correct - for dtb compatible formality - for pure technical reasons I am not convinced that your proposal is correct either. - for pure technical reasons (for same resan as you state) Especially this part I consider faulty: + - items: + - const: fsl,imx6sx-usdhc + - const: fsl,imx6sl-usdhc Keyword: ESDHC_FLAG_STATE_LOST_IN_LPMODE (detailed that in an earlier mail). Regards Andreas
