Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231026093029.3122573-1-kris.chaplin@amd.com>
 <20231026093029.3122573-2-kris.chaplin@amd.com> <20231030154015.GA1141490-robh@kernel.org>
 <df37f8db-a8c7-4a99-8828-3cb123afed1d@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <df37f8db-a8c7-4a99-8828-3cb123afed1d@amd.com>
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 11:19:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+SMY+C3=e=zbdrP_Ekj3FkRs7QQyg2pqmjrcz_0AvmBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND v2 1/2] dt-bindings: w1: Add YAML DT schema for AMD AXI
 w1 host and MAINTAINERS entry
To:     Kris Chaplin <kris.chaplin@amd.com>
Cc:     thomas.delev@amd.com, michal.simek@amd.com,
        krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        git@amd.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:48=E2=80=AFAM Kris Chaplin <kris.chaplin@amd.com=
> wrote:
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> On 30/10/2023 15:40, Rob Herring wrote:
>
> Is there a device side implementation? I can't really imagine that
> 1-wire would ever be implemented as firmware on the device side given
> its limited nature. So adding 'host' doesn't make this any more
> specific.
>
> There are slave drivers as well as master, although these do not have a d=
evice tree binding.

My question is whether there is slave/device IP for implementing the
device side in software? The slave drivers in the kernel are for
handling those devices, not a slave side controller interface.

For comparison, we have SPI slave in the kernel which is for
implementing the device side in software (running Linux or another
OS). There is no such thing in the kernel for 1-wire and I would doubt
there would ever be a software implementation. Could you, yes, but
given the limited nature of 1-wire why would you?

>
> The IP device from AMD is called "axi_1wire_host", and so we are hoping t=
o stick with this binding if appropriate as it relates to the IP name.

Okay, I suppose that is good enough reason.

However, the versioning comments in your first v2 have not been
addressed. I believe the conclusion was to mention the IP has a
version register. And Conor's R-by tag was not added.

Rob