Hi Krzysztof,
Thank you for the review.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 12:00 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 08/03/2024 18:27, Prabhakar wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Document support for the I2C Bus Interface (RIIC) available in the
> > Renesas RZ/V2H (R9A09G057) SoC.
> >
> > The RIIC interface in the Renesas RZ/V2H differs from RZ/A in a
> > couple of ways:
> > - Register offsets for the RZ/V2H SoC differ from those of the RZ/A SoC.
> > - RZ/V2H register access is 8-bit, whereas RZ/A supports 8/16/32-bit.
> > - RZ/V2H has some bit differences in the slave address register.
> >
> > To accommodate these differences in the existing driver, a new compatible
> > string "renesas,riic-r9a09g057" is added.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I have doubts this are true reviews. What did it even show? Why this
> review did not point problem with generic compatible?
>
As mentioned in path#1 these are "real"!
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml | 21 ++++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml
> > index 63ac5fe3208d..2a7125688647 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/renesas,riic.yaml
> > @@ -15,14 +15,19 @@ allOf:
> >
> > properties:
> > compatible:
> > - items:
> > - - enum:
> > - - renesas,riic-r7s72100 # RZ/A1H
> > - - renesas,riic-r7s9210 # RZ/A2M
> > - - renesas,riic-r9a07g043 # RZ/G2UL and RZ/Five
> > - - renesas,riic-r9a07g044 # RZ/G2{L,LC}
> > - - renesas,riic-r9a07g054 # RZ/V2L
> > - - const: renesas,riic-rz # generic RIIC compatible
> > + oneOf:
> > + - items:
> > + - enum:
> > + - renesas,riic-r7s72100 # RZ/A1H
> > + - renesas,riic-r7s9210 # RZ/A2M
> > + - renesas,riic-r9a07g043 # RZ/G2UL and RZ/Five
> > + - renesas,riic-r9a07g044 # RZ/G2{L,LC}
> > + - renesas,riic-r9a07g054 # RZ/V2L
> > + - const: renesas,riic-rz # generic RIIC compatible
> > +
> > + - items:
> > + - enum:
> > + - renesas,riic-r9a09g057 # RZ/V2H(P)
>
> No, that does not look right. If you added generic compatible for all
> RIIC then how can you add a new RIIC compatible which does not follow
> generic one?
>
The generic compatible above which was added previously was for the
RZ/(A) SoCs and not for all the RIICs. The RZ/G2L family was also
compatible hence they fallback to the generic RZ one.
> This shows the ridiculousness of these generic compatibles. They are
> generic till you figure out the truth: oh crap, it's not generic.
>
Sorry I lack skills to predict the future of upcoming IP blocks which
fit in the SoC.
> Stop adding generic compatibles when they are not generic.
>
BTW I am not adding a generic compatible string here and instead
adding a SoC specific string. Anyway DT maintainers "should not" have
been accepting the generic compatibles from day 1 for any binding at
all.
Is there a guideline where you can point me to please for when to add
generic and when not to.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
