| Message ID | 20240411085218.450237-1-vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Revert "Revert "dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible"" | expand |
On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. > > The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") > was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci > controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire history. Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted? https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/ Best regards, Krzysztof
On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >> >> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> > > I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire > history. > > Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted? > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/ > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195094 We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat. --- bod
On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >>> >>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >> >> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire >> history. >> >> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted? >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/ >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195094 > > We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat. I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same thread as I linked. What does it prove? Best regards, Krzysztof
On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >>>> >>>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >>>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >>>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >>> >>> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire >>> history. >>> >>> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted? >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/ >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >>> >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195094 >> >> We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat. > > I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same > thread as I linked. What does it prove? > And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 11/04/2024 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>> On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>>>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >>>>> >>>>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >>>>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >>>>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire >>>> history. >>>> >>>> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted? >>>> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/ >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Krzysztof >>>> >>> >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195094 >>> >>> We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat. >> >> I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same >> thread as I linked. What does it prove? >> > > And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we > talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195327 Konrad pointed out we don't need a new compat because the sm8250 compat string could be reused. So, I don't believe this revert should be reverted and I do believe Vlad needs his own compat string because his clock list isn't supported. --- bod
On 11/04/2024 12:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 11/04/2024 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>>> On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>>>>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >>>>>> >>>>>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >>>>>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >>>>>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >>>>> >>>>> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire >>>>> history. >>>>> >>>>> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted? >>>>> >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Krzysztof >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195094 >>>> >>>> We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat. >>> >>> I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same >>> thread as I linked. What does it prove? >>> >> >> And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we >> talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver. > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195327 > > Konrad pointed out we don't need a new compat because the sm8250 compat > string could be reused. Where did he point that? I see only comment about driver, not bindings. Please point me to his comment (and again, not patchwork which gives you entire discussion and no one knows to which comment you refer, but lore link which leads to specific one email where Konrad said it). > > So, I don't believe this revert should be reverted and I do believe Vlad > needs his own compat string because his clock list isn't supported. That's a new argument and no one mentioned it before... Best regards, Krzysztof
On 11/04/2024 11:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/04/2024 12:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> On 11/04/2024 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>>>>>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >>>>>>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >>>>>>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire >>>>>> history. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted? >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Krzysztof >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195094 >>>>> >>>>> We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat. >>>> >>>> I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same >>>> thread as I linked. What does it prove? >>>> >>> >>> And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we >>> talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver. >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195327 >> >> Konrad pointed out we don't need a new compat because the sm8250 compat >> string could be reused. > > Where did he point that? I see only comment about driver, not bindings. > Please point me to his comment (and again, not patchwork which gives you > entire discussion and no one knows to which comment you refer, but lore > link which leads to specific one email where Konrad said it). Konrad made a comment about the compat string in the driver, I looked at the yaml and realised I could reuse the compat string. Then asked for a reversion of the add. I still think this is the right thing to do, no ? --- bod
On 11/04/2024 12:57, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 11/04/2024 11:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/04/2024 12:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>> On 11/04/2024 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>>>>>>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document >>>>>>>> sc8280xp compatible") >>>>>>>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >>>>>>>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on >>>>>>> entire >>>>>>> history. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Krzysztof >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195094 >>>>>> >>>>>> We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat. >>>>> >>>>> I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same >>>>> thread as I linked. What does it prove? >>>>> >>>> >>>> And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we >>>> talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver. >>> >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195327 >>> >>> Konrad pointed out we don't need a new compat because the sm8250 compat >>> string could be reused. >> >> Where did he point that? I see only comment about driver, not bindings. >> Please point me to his comment (and again, not patchwork which gives you >> entire discussion and no one knows to which comment you refer, but lore >> link which leads to specific one email where Konrad said it). > > Konrad made a comment about the compat string in the driver, I looked at > the yaml and realised I could reuse the compat string. > > Then asked for a reversion of the add. > > I still think this is the right thing to do, no ? > > --- > bod > OK I see the confusion. I forgot to fix the compat string in the submitted dtsi. commit 7cfa2e758bf4d56e0db5587a88db01ee6fffa259 Author: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> Date: Thu Jan 11 17:15:56 2024 +0000 + cci0: cci@ac4a000 { + compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-cci" That should be "qcom,sm8250-cci" since there was no need for a separate 8280xp compat string. --- bod
On 11/04/2024 13:57, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 11/04/2024 11:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/04/2024 12:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>> On 11/04/2024 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>>>>>>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >>>>>>>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >>>>>>>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire >>>>>>> history. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@linaro.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Krzysztof >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195094 >>>>>> >>>>>> We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat. >>>>> >>>>> I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same >>>>> thread as I linked. What does it prove? >>>>> >>>> >>>> And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we >>>> talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver. >>> >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/#3195327 >>> >>> Konrad pointed out we don't need a new compat because the sm8250 compat >>> string could be reused. >> >> Where did he point that? I see only comment about driver, not bindings. >> Please point me to his comment (and again, not patchwork which gives you >> entire discussion and no one knows to which comment you refer, but lore >> link which leads to specific one email where Konrad said it). > > Konrad made a comment about the compat string in the driver, I looked at > the yaml and realised I could reuse the compat string. For the driver. The YAML was correct, wasn't it? It got reviewed and it was about entirely different SoC, not sm8250. You cannot use sm8250 as sc8280xp in the binding. These SoCs do not share anything. > > Then asked for a reversion of the add. > > I still think this is the right thing to do, no ? So if IIUC, the misunderstanding was about the driver/binding. Then no, binding should have been dropped. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. > > The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") > was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci > controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> Subject: dt-bindings: i2c: Revert .... Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Best regards, Krzysztof
On 11/04/2024 13:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >> >> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> > > Subject: > dt-bindings: i2c: Revert .... > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Reversion is not the right fix. I'll send a proper fix asap. cci0: cci@ac4a000 { compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-cci", "qcom,msm8996-cci"; clock-names = "camnoc_axi", "slow_ahb_src", "cpas_ahb", "cci"; - if: properties: compatible: contains: enum: - qcom,sc7280-cci - qcom,sc8280xp-cci-no-bueno - qcom,sm8250-cci - qcom,sm8450-cci then: properties: clocks: minItems: 5 maxItems: 5 clock-names: items: - const: camnoc_axi - const: slow_ahb_src - const: cpas_ahb - const: cci - const: cci_src --- bod
On 11/04/2024 14:21, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 11/04/2024 13:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >>> >>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >> >> Subject: >> dt-bindings: i2c: Revert .... >> >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > Reversion is not the right fix. > > I'll send a proper fix asap. > > cci0: cci@ac4a000 { > compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-cci", "qcom,msm8996-cci"; > > clock-names = "camnoc_axi", > "slow_ahb_src", > "cpas_ahb", So this patch was not tested? Un-reviewed.... I complain a lot that people from various companies send untested patches, but it seems Linaro does the same. That does not make me happy :/ Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Bryan, On 4/11/24 15:21, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 11/04/2024 13:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>> This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. >>> >>> The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") >>> was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci >>> controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> >> >> Subject: >> dt-bindings: i2c: Revert .... >> >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > Reversion is not the right fix. > > I'll send a proper fix asap. Thank you for review of this change related to "sc8280xp-cci" compatible and the expressed desire to sort the mess out, I will be waiting for your new change impatiently, since afterwards it will let me send my update to the "sm8650-cci" related change. -- Best wishes, Vladimir
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml index f0eabff86310..43af1c23ebe4 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ properties: - items: - enum: - qcom,sc7280-cci + - qcom,sc8280xp-cci - qcom,sdm845-cci - qcom,sm6350-cci - qcom,sm8250-cci @@ -161,6 +162,7 @@ allOf: contains: enum: - qcom,sc7280-cci + - qcom,sc8280xp-cci - qcom,sm8250-cci - qcom,sm8450-cci then:
This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58. The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible") was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/qcom,i2c-cci.yaml | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)