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

[Frank Li]

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
>