On 16/01/2024 21:44, Frank Li wrote: > 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" ? Could be, now please point me to patch adding such code to DTS. I would like to see the real use case for it. > Just little bit strange for binding file name > is silvaco,i3c-master.yaml. Many other bindings do it. I don't see a problem in creating device specific schema sharing some parts, if you have some common pieces. > > look like "dwc,*" compatitble string's file name is "dwc,*".yaml. ? I don't understand how is this related, but if this is what you want to discuss then look: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,dwc3.yaml or many other examples. Please open dwc, snps and cdns bindings and look how it is done there. Best regards, Krzysztof
