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;
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 23:26:51 -0700
From:   Guru Das Srinagesh <quic_gurus@quicinc.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
CC:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
        <~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht>,
        <martin.botka@somainline.org>,
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>,
        <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>, <jamipkettunen@somainline.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Robert Marko <robimarko@gmail.com>,
        <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: document Qualcomm SM6375 SCM
Message-ID: <20220928062651.GA9662@quicinc.com>
References: <20220921001020.55307-1-konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
 <95fb2bfb-6eb8-012d-88f8-c739d229ef70@linaro.org>
 <8faecd72-0cfd-18eb-d07a-53b3a23ed05a@somainline.org>
 <20220924000932.GA1450@quicinc.com>
 <fcc5bc9f-6b6b-b9ca-45aa-ff2c880a4774@linaro.org>
 <20220926165904.GA17938@quicinc.com>
 <90185f20-f91a-54b9-bb46-d186419b5169@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <90185f20-f91a-54b9-bb46-d186419b5169@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Sep 27 2022 13:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/09/2022 18:59, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > On Sep 24 2022 10:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 24/09/2022 02:09, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> >>> On Sep 21 2022 20:43, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>>> Does it? I did not define this compatible in the driver, so it does
> >>>> not consume any clocks.
> >>>
> >>> The bindings should describe only those compatibles that the driver supports -
> >>> that is, both the driver and its bindings should be in sync.
> >>
> >> That's not entirely true. Bindings describe the hardware in the most
> >> complete way we can. Not the driver. Whether driver supports something
> >> or not, is not relevant here, except that we don't want to document
> >> non-existing things or stuff out of tree.
> > 
> > Is this only applicable to compatibles or device tree properties in general?
> 
> This applies to everything.
> 
> > 
> >>>
> >>> Could you please update the driver with this compatible as well? Let's not
> >>> merge this change without that first.
> >>
> >> This could be even merged without change in the driver. However it's not
> >> the case here as driver already supports it, so your request is fulfilled.
> > 
> > My concern is that if somebody specifies a compatible/device tree property that
> > the driver doesn't support, their expectations from adding that change will not
> > be met. In addition to having the bindings describe HW in full, I think the
> > driver should also be in sync with it for this reason.
> 
> As Rob answered, it might be difficult to keep all drivers in all
> operating systems, bootloaders and firmware components to be in sync. :)

Ack.