Return-Path: 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 71617C63797 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 10:47:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230063AbjBFKrU (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2023 05:47:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48682 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229990AbjBFKrJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2023 05:47:09 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B44A15C8C; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 02:47:08 -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 05CEF13D5; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 02:47:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.57.12.205]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42A603F8C6; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 02:47:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 10:47:04 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Rob Herring Cc: Cristian Marussi , Krzysztof Kozlowski , 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: <20230206104704.xe72srqygepguuk2@bogus> References: <20230124222023.316089-1-robh@kernel.org> <20230125141113.kkbowopusikuogx6@bogus> <20230126144647.6q3qlu5sqz27cmyc@bogus> <20230126170412.4ytcky6a7lnll6it@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rob, On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:52:33PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > TBC, 'protocol@.*' would not allow anything but the properties defined > in the /$defs/protocol-node. So [1] would throw errors without a > schema addition. Right I clearly missed that, somehow I assumed it would allow. > We should either do that along with dropping 'protocol@18' or we keep > protocol 0x18 node and add all other providerless protocols. I don't > think we need the latter to just check unit-address vs. reg. I only argument today it to allow protocol specific transport. So we could delay addition of it until someone needs that way. So far we haven't seen anyone using it other than performance(even that is not needed with the introduction of fast channels that are auto discoverable in relatively newer versions of the spec). -- Regards, Sudeep