Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756593AbcKKNep (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:34:45 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:52964 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756452AbcKKNeo (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:34:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1478148731-11712-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1478148731-11712-7-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20161110012249.ed56ik6kdffoikym@rob-hp-laptop> <14e563ae-36c5-4bf9-0d51-3b07830de3db@arm.com> <7ccc12bc-9a05-47e3-8ab8-d1b0ad31159e@arm.com> From: Rob Herring Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:34:20 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Olof Johansson , Neil Armstrong , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1549 Lines: 42 On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla >> 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