Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1514280 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-03 06:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-11-11 15:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 10 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-11-03 06:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-11-08 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2016-11-10 02:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-11-10 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2016-11-10 15:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-11-10 15:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - 2016-11-10 20:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-11-11 08:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2016-11-11 14:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-11-11 15:20 +0100
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 06:00 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <szii6-7CH-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol. Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations. Required properties: -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" +- compatible : should be + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or above + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0 - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers All the channels reserved by remote SCP firmware for use by SCPI message protocol should be specified in any order -- 1.9.1
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 15:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <sBfSN-2az-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1514280 |
Hi Rob, On 03/11/16 04:52, Sudeep Holla wrote: > This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol. > Sorry for messing it up before, I think this version is much better. Only this patch introduces new compatible, while 5,7,8/8 are just reorganization to move the platform specific stuff out of the generic SCPI bindings. It would be good if you can have a quick look and provide ack if you are happy with these patches. -- Regards, Sudeep > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt > index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt > @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations. > > Required properties: > > -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" > +- compatible : should be > + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or above > + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0 > - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers > All the channels reserved by remote SCP firmware for use by > SCPI message protocol should be specified in any order >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 02:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <sBMlI-77l-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1514280 |
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote: > This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol. > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt > index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt > @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations. > > Required properties: > > -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" > +- compatible : should be > + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or above > + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0 I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there many? Rob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 11:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <sBUMi-4pa-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1518624 |
On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol. >> >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations. >> >> Required properties: >> >> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" >> +- compatible : should be >> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or above >> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0 > > I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there > many? > I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks based on them if needed. I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's clear why we can't do version based compatible. -- Regards, Sudeep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 15:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <sBYmR-7lj-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1518836 |
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> >>> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol. >>> >>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power >>> operations. >>> >>> Required properties: >>> >>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" >>> +- compatible : should be >>> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or >>> above >>> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0 >> >> >> I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there >> many? >> > > I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not > officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very > early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific > compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason > to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks > based on them if needed. > > I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's > clear why we can't do version based compatible. This is exactly my point. By enumerate, I meant having platform specific compatibles. Having "arm,legacy-scpi" is pointless because who knows what version they followed and they may all be different. Rob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 15:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <sBYGd-7rk-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1519003 |
On 10/11/16 14:12, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>> >>>> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol. >>>> >>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power >>>> operations. >>>> >>>> Required properties: >>>> >>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" >>>> +- compatible : should be >>>> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or >>>> above >>>> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0 >>> >>> >>> I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there >>> many? >>> >> >> I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not >> officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very >> early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific >> compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason >> to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks >> based on them if needed. >> >> I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's >> clear why we can't do version based compatible. > > This is exactly my point. By enumerate, I meant having platform > specific compatibles. Having "arm,legacy-scpi" is pointless because > who knows what version they followed and they may all be different. > OK, but IIUC Olof's concern wanted a generic one along with the platform specific compatible which kind of makes sense as so far we have seen some commonality between Amlogic and Rockchip. E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible (in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?) make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform specific compatible for deviations only. Is that not acceptable ? -- Regards, Sudeep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 20:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <sC2Tw-1Yn-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1519014 |
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > On 10/11/16 14:12, Rob Herring wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol. >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>>> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>>> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power >>>>> operations. >>>>> >>>>> Required properties: >>>>> >>>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" >>>>> +- compatible : should be >>>>> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or >>>>> above >>>>> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI >>>>> v1.0 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there >>>> many? >>>> >>> >>> I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not >>> officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very >>> early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific >>> compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason >>> to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks >>> based on them if needed. >>> >>> I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's >>> clear why we can't do version based compatible. >> >> >> This is exactly my point. By enumerate, I meant having platform >> specific compatibles. Having "arm,legacy-scpi" is pointless because >> who knows what version they followed and they may all be different. >> > > OK, but IIUC Olof's concern wanted a generic one along with the platform > specific compatible which kind of makes sense as so far we have seen > some commonality between Amlogic and Rockchip. > > E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in > couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible > (in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?) > make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform > specific compatible for deviations only. > > Is that not acceptable ? If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less useful to have a shared less precise compatible value. What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead we should have those as extensions on the side. I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc. -Olof
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 08:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <sCeKZ-1mm-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1519306 |
On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 10/11/16 14:12, Rob Herring wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>>>> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644 >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>>>> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power >>>>>> operations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Required properties: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" >>>>>> +- compatible : should be >>>>>> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or >>>>>> above >>>>>> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI >>>>>> v1.0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there >>>>> many? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not >>>> officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very >>>> early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific >>>> compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason >>>> to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks >>>> based on them if needed. >>>> >>>> I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's >>>> clear why we can't do version based compatible. >>> >>> >>> This is exactly my point. By enumerate, I meant having platform >>> specific compatibles. Having "arm,legacy-scpi" is pointless because >>> who knows what version they followed and they may all be different. >>> >> >> OK, but IIUC Olof's concern wanted a generic one along with the platform >> specific compatible which kind of makes sense as so far we have seen >> some commonality between Amlogic and Rockchip. >> >> E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in >> couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible >> (in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?) >> make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform >> specific compatible for deviations only. >> >> Is that not acceptable ? > > If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less > useful to have a shared less precise compatible value. > There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the standard command set will be shared. > What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't > expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead > we should have those as extensions on the side. > Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the deviations but generic one to handle the shared set. > I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same > bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc. > True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ? -- Regards, Sudeep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 14:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <sCkdI-4SU-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1519598 |
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >> wrote: [...] >>> E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in >>> couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible >>> (in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?) >>> make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform >>> specific compatible for deviations only. >>> >>> Is that not acceptable ? >> >> >> If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less >> useful to have a shared less precise compatible value. >> > > There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the > standard command set will be shared. > >> What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't >> expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead >> we should have those as extensions on the side. >> > > Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the > deviations but generic one to handle the shared set. > >> I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same >> bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc. >> > > True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ? That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how many releases did ARM make before 1.0. Rob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 15:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol |
| Message-ID | <sCkQp-5qC-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1519793 |
On 11/11/16 13:34, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >> On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>> wrote: > > [...] > >>>> E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in >>>> couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible >>>> (in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?) >>>> make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform >>>> specific compatible for deviations only. >>>> >>>> Is that not acceptable ? >>> >>> >>> If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less >>> useful to have a shared less precise compatible value. >>> >> >> There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the >> standard command set will be shared. >> >>> What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't >>> expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead >>> we should have those as extensions on the side. >>> >> >> Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the >> deviations but generic one to handle the shared set. >> >>> I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same >>> bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc. >>> >> >> True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ? > > That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations > are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how > many releases did ARM make before 1.0. > None officially, so I tend to agree with you on this. But so far we have seen some commonality between Rockchip and Amlogic implementations, which in fact shares some commonality with early release of SCPI from ARM (there are based on the same SCP code base, which is closed source and released to partners only). ARM improved the specification and the code base before the official release but by then it was adopted(as usual we were late ;)) IMO, it's might be useful to have more generic say "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" and platform specific "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi" -- Regards, Sudeep
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web