Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:50:45 -0800
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
To:     Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, david.brown@linaro.org,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, andy.gross@linaro.org,
        akdwived@codeaurora.org, clew@codeaurora.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org,
        ohad@wizery.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom: Add firmware
 bindings for Q6V5
Message-ID: <20190103235043.GA195759@google.com>
References: <20181228044819.5697-1-sibis@codeaurora.org>
 <20181228044819.5697-2-sibis@codeaurora.org>
 <20190103233014.GA181833@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190103233014.GA181833@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 03:30:14PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:18:18AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > +- firmware-name:
> > +	Usage: optional
> > +	Value type: <string>
> > +	Definition: must list the relative firmware image path for the
> > +		    Hexagon Core.
> 
> Relative to what? I still think it's a terrible idea that your driver
> looks for files at the top-level /lib/firmware/ directory, but now
> you're leaking this into the device tree. This should at a bare minimum
> be namespaced to something like the qcom/ sub-directory. But ideally,
> the driver would automatically be deriving a further sub-directory of
> qcom/ based on the chipset or something, and then the only thing you'd
> describe here is some kind of variant string -- something akin to
> ath10k's qcom,ath10k-calibration-variant (see
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/qcom,ath10k.txt), which
> doesn't require a full path-name or any hierarchy.

Oh, I see Rob actually recommended this binding in v1, and it's (sort
of) in use by a few other drivers. Is it really expected that we put
arbitrary pathnames in device tree? None of the binding documentation
seems very specific to me, and their implementations *do* allow
arbitrary text. As it stands today, this is a great recipe for name
collision -- e.g., how the driver today suggests "modem.XYZ" names; is
Qualcomm really the only one out there making modems? :D

So my natural instinct is to avoid this. But if that's what everybody
wants...

Brian