On 16/01/2024 20:13, Frank Li wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 06:23:09PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:35:44PM -0500, Frank Li wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:48:08AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:33:48AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 16/01/2024 10:30, Conor Dooley wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 08:24:20AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>> On 16/01/2024 03:29, Frank Li wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Patches were accepted after discussion, what you ponit to. So I >>>>>>>>>> think everyone agree on the name 'silvaco,i3c-master-v1'. >>>>>>>>>> I plan send next version to fix auto build error. Any additional >>>>>>>>>> comments about this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I still do not see how did you address Rob's comment and his point is >>>>>>>>> valid. You just did not reply to it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See https://lore.kernel.org/imx/ZXCiaKfMYYShoiXK@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First of all, that's not the answer to Rob's email, but some other >>>>>>> thread which is 99% ignored by Rob (unless he has filters for >>>>>>> "@Rob"...). Therefore no, it does not count as valid answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Second, explanation does not make sense. There is no argument granting >>>>>>> you exception from SoC specific compatibles. >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch could have been applied two months ago had Frank done as >>>>>> was requested (multiple times). I don't understand the resistance >>>>>> towards doing so given the process has taken way way longer as a result. >>>>> >>>>> I think that Rob's comment was just skipped and original master binding >>>>> was merged without addressing it. I don't want to repeat the same >>>>> process for the "target". Indeed I could point this earlier... if I only >>>>> knew that Rob pointed out that issue. >>>> >>>> Oh I think I got confused here. The context for this mail led me to >>>> think that this was still trying to push the i3c-master-v1 stuff through >>>> and I was commenting on my frustration with the resistance to applying >>>> the feedback received. I didn't realise that this was for another >>>> patch adding a target. >>>> >>>> I think you already said it, but NAK to adding any more compatibles here >>>> until the soc-specific compatible that was asked for for the imx93 is >>>> added. >>> >>> Is it okay for 'silvaco,i3c-target-imx93'? No, because imx93 is product of NXP, not Silvaco. You need regular SoC-block compatibles, just like we have for all other snps, dwc and cdns. Best regards, Krzysztof
