Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: i3c: svc: add compatible string i3c: silvaco,i3c-target-v1

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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