Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <b7ff08b8-60fb-7629-9399-3d5cca46ab9e@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:10:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CHROMIUM: arm64: dts: qcom: Add sc7180-gelarshie
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     Mars Chen <chenxiangrui@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220330090947.9100-1-chenxiangrui@huaqin.corp-partner.google.com>
 <a0eb6bf9-256a-29b1-2211-496df710f531@linaro.org>
 <CAD=FV=UjyLofXZqnj=bL89fza5JS6O5Np9W-A4V4WK+na0hdrw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UjyLofXZqnj=bL89fza5JS6O5Np9W-A4V4WK+na0hdrw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 13/04/2022 23:48, Doug Anderson wrote:
> I'm actually kinda curious: is there really a good reason for this? I
> know I haven't been adding things to
> `Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml` for Qualcomm
> Chromebooks.  Ironically, it turns out that the script I typically use
> to invoke checkpatch happens to have "--no-tree" as an argument and
> that seems to disable this check. Doh!
> 
> That being said, though, I do wonder a little bit about the value of
> enumerating the top-level compatible like this in a yaml file.
> Certainly the yaml schema validation in general can be quite useful,
> but this top-level listing seems pure overhead. I guess it makes some
> tools happy, but other than that it seems to provide very little
> value...

If compatible is not part of ABI, it is allowed to change in whatever
shape one wishes. In such case, how can anyone (e.g. user-space)
identify the board? Model name? Also not part of ABI (not documented)...


Best regards,
Krzysztof