Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220125224422.544381-1-dianders@chromium.org>
 <20220125144316.v2.5.I5604b7af908e8bbe709ac037a6a8a6ba8a2bfa94@changeid>
 <CAE-0n528Bxdj+DKhi2Lan4qR_=4KHD7A1Zkr15tmu+MchryJ1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD=FV=UcpKaLQ31CGKUnaNnZcYnM4N_t8VC43FPGktoYDiMfsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfC5i2jR5N+pmHoZ@ripper> <CAE-0n50sX9-0MxcpF+3Rwqm75jSw5=aNwdsitLwE2sEA69jLJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfgRS/UtRn6Ewwhj@builder.lan> <CAD=FV=V=pbmP-wKhAOVRBC0M=YjYm3Ym-022g8uBEZOxKW-8BQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=V=pbmP-wKhAOVRBC0M=YjYm3Ym-022g8uBEZOxKW-8BQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:01:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WQ0gR18x9rhioLtYGO3oWtny1c52YaiZHUG=PG03d+OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add herobrine-r1
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
        kgodara@codeaurora.org, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>,
        Prasad Malisetty <pmaliset@codeaurora.org>,
        quic_rjendra@quicinc.com, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:50 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > Either we leave it as is - which follows my interpretation of what the DT
> > spec says - or we (and the DT maitainers) agree that it shouldn't be
> > there (because this dtb won't run on any random qcom,sc7180 anyways) at
> > all.
>
> I'm curious what part of the DT spec says that we should have the SoC
> in there? I know I've always done it, but it's always just been
> following the examples of what was done before. When talking about the
> root node, I see this in the `devicetree-specification-v0.4-rc1` spec:
>
> ---
>
> Specifies a list of platform architectures with which this platform is
> compatible. This property can be used by operating systems in
> selecting platform specific code. The recommended form of the property
> value is: "manufacturer,model"
>
> For example:
> compatible = "fsl,mpc8572ds"
>
> ---
>
> That doesn't say anything about putting the SoC there.
>
>
> I would also note that I'd be at least moderately inclined to land
> things as-is and deal with this in a follow-up patch, though I'm happy
> to spin if that's what people agree upon too. This is not a new
> problem and so it doesn't seem like it makes sense to glom dealing
> with it into this patch series...

I noticed that you applied the first 4 patches in the series (thanks!)
but not this one. Are we waiting to get agreement on this before
landing? As per above, I think it'd be OK to land as-is and then I'm
happy to do a follow-up patch to clean this up since this isn't a new
issue. Having this patch outstanding makes it a little confusing with
the other cleanup patches that I'm posting... ;-)

Thanks!

-Doug