Re: [PATCH 16/22] dt-bindings: qcom: geni-se: document support for SA8255P

[Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/30/2024 2:58 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/08/2024 16:23, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>> On 8/29/2024 12:42 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:37:15PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>>>> Add "qcom,sa8255p-geni-se-qup" compatible for representing QUP on
>>>> SA8255p.
>>>>
>>>> Clocks are being managed by the firmware VM and not required on
>>>> SA8255p Linux VM hence removing it from required list.
>>>>
>>>> CC: Praveen Talari <quic_ptalari@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml       | 47 +++++++++++++++++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml
>>>> index 7b031ef09669..40e3a3e045da 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml
>>>> @@ -22,17 +22,16 @@ properties:
>>>>      enum:
>>>>        - qcom,geni-se-qup
>>>>        - qcom,geni-se-i2c-master-hub
>>>> +      - qcom,sa8255p-geni-se-qup
>>> Same problems. If you decide to use generic compatibles, it means it
>>> covers all devices. Otherwise it does not make any sense.
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> SA8255p platform is not compatible with generic ones. At the time
>> generic compatibles were added, no one thought of such platform will
> That's kind of obvious and expected yet these were added...
>
>> appear in future. Please advise what should we do in this case?
> I don't know. We keep telling - do not use generic compatibles, because
> you will have something like this, but people use generic compatibles -
> so what can I say? I told you so?
>
> Can we get agreement that using generic compatibles is a wrong idea? Or
> sort of promise - we won't use them? Or policy? I don't know, we can
> move on assuming this was a mistake 8 years ago, approaches evolve,
> reviews change, but I am just afraid I will be repeating the same to
> several future contributions and every time come with long arguments
> exhausting my energy - don't add generic compatibles.
>
> If devices are not compatible, I suggest different bindings.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Hi Krzysztof,

I will bring your concerns (raised above) to Qualcomm leads' attention.
Thank you for your feedback and support.

Thanks,

-Nikunj

>