Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90655C52D11
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 17:04:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S231856AbjAZREf (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 26 Jan 2023 12:04:35 -0500
Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42310 "EHLO
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S231649AbjAZREd (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 26 Jan 2023 12:04:33 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172])
        by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4C7677AF;
        Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:04:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])
        by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6310A4B3;
        Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bogus (e103737-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.49])
        by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 889473F64C;
        Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 17:04:12 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child
 node properties
Message-ID: <20230126170412.4ytcky6a7lnll6it@bogus>
References: <20230124222023.316089-1-robh@kernel.org>
 <Y9EyB+OO7MyGy20w@e120937-lin>
 <20230125141113.kkbowopusikuogx6@bogus>
 <Y9JLUIioxFPn4BS0@e120937-lin>
 <20230126144647.6q3qlu5sqz27cmyc@bogus>
 <CAL_JsqLxBAB103vgCUOwW4SkAApm6_=Ace7EFWMSDFKDzJaKpQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLxBAB103vgCUOwW4SkAApm6_=Ace7EFWMSDFKDzJaKpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:25:12AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:46 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:43:44AM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:11:13PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:43:48PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > > > so now that the catch-all protocol@ patternProperty is gone in favour
> > > > > of the 'protocol-node' definition and $refs, does that mean that any
> > > > > current and future SCMI officially published protocol <N> has to be
> > > > > added to the above explicit protocol list, even though it does not
> > > > > have any special additional required property beside reg ?
> > > > > (like protocol@18 above...)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If there are no consumers, should we just not add and deal with it
> > > > entirely within the kernel. I know we rely today on presence of node
> > > > before we initialise, but hey we have exception for system power protocol
> > > > for other reasons, why not add this one too.
> > > >
> > > > In short we shouldn't have to add a node if there are no consumers. It
> > > > was one of the topic of discussion initially when SCMI binding was added
> > > > and they exist only for the consumers otherwise we don't need it as
> > > > everything is discoverable from the interface.
> > >
> > > It is fine for me the no-consumers/no-node argument (which anyway would
> > > require a few changes in the core init logic anyway to work this way...),
> > > BUT is it not that ANY protocol (even future-ones) does have, potentially,
> > > consumers indeed, since each protocol-node can potentially have a dedicated
> > > channel and related DT channel-descriptor ? (when multiple channels are
> > > allowed by the transport)
> > >
> > > I mean, as an example, you dont strictly need protos 0x18/0x12 nodes for
> > > anything (if we patch the core init as said) UNLESS you want to dedicate
> > > a channel to those protocols; so I'm just checking here if these kind of
> > > scenarios will still be allowed with this binding change, or if I am
> > > missing something.
> >
> > Ah, good point on the transport information. Yes we will need a node if
> > a protocol has a dedicated transport. No one has used so far other than
> > Juno perf, but we never know. We can always extended the bindings if
> > needed.
> >
> > Sorry for missing the dedicated transport part.
>
> So I need to add back 'protocol@.*' or not?

IMO it is better to know what exactly gets added under each of these protocol
sub-nodes and so better to have entry specific to each known protocols. I
liked that fact with this change as I have seen some crazy vendor extensions
adding all sorts of non-sense defining some vendor protocol. For example [1],
in which case we can catch those better than existing schema which matches
all. So let's not add protocol@.* if possible or until that becomes the only
cleaner way to maintain this.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1667451512-9655-2-git-send-email-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/