On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:30:24PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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. "nxp,imx93-svc-i3c-target" ? Just little bit strange for binding file name is silvaco,i3c-master.yaml. look like "dwc,*" compatitble string's file name is "dwc,*".yaml. Frank > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
