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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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