Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231109100606.1245545-1-wenst@chromium.org> <859ac058-c50a-4eb8-99b6-3011ef4e7529@collabora.com>
 <CAL_JsqK64w3+r_LJZoh50PzAUcsvH6ahSDCqgSiKrD3LBAXE9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD=FV=VUZy9DaZgKafSpXXopD5k8ExGSR97BjAqC5tupPoxNfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_Jsq+puq20EWkQg1RTs2zfmh4DGbqz1krp+19c=wPXnLT5dA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD=FV=X-17COQ2-tycV1bSuCrGy7MJ88Un8nA-a-ODexvgi9TQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=X-17COQ2-tycV1bSuCrGy7MJ88Un8nA-a-ODexvgi9TQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:34:53 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqKR_YD6hm4Lv+OuCKms8Ha61BZRKUuiLYPgSkz3_3NCFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] of: Introduce hardware prober driver
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, broonie@kernel.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, hdegoede@redhat.com,
        james.clark@arm.com, james@equiv.tech, keescook@chromium.org,
        petr.tesarik.ext@huawei.com, rafael@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        Jeff LaBundy <jeff@labundy.com>, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 2:45=E2=80=AFPM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.or=
g> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 2:28=E2=80=AFPM Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> =
wrote:
> >
> > > So if we're searching the whole device tree for "failed-needs-probe"
> > > then we need to figure out which devices are related to each other. I=
f
> > > a given board has second sources for MIPI panels, touchscreens, and
> > > trackpads then we need to know which of the "failed-needs-probe"
> > > devices are trackpads, which are touchscreens, and which are MIPI
> > > panels. Do you have any suggestions for how we should do that? Maybe
> > > it was in some other thread that I missed? I guess we could have a
> > > board-specific table mapping (compatible + node name + reg) to a
> > > class, but that feels awkward.
> >
> > Node name is supposed to correspond to device class, so why not use
> > that (no path or unit-address.) and nothing else (well, besides
> > "status")?
>
> One problem is that I could imagine having two second source trackpads
> that both have the same i2c address. That would give them the same
> name, right? I guess you could maybe come up with some sort of suffix
> rule? Like
>
> trackpad-1@10 {
>   compatible =3D "elan,blah";
>   ret =3D <0x10>;
>   status =3D "failed-needs-probe";
>   ...
> }
> trackpad-2@10 {
>   compatible =3D "goodix,gt7375p";
>   ret =3D <0x10>;
>   status =3D "failed-needs-probe";
>   ...
> }
>
> Then I guess the class would be "trackpad"?

That issue is somewhat orthogonal because it is not following the spec.

I'm not sure mixing the 2 styles of node names is a good idea. While
not used too much, matching by node name does ignore the unit-address,
but I'm not sure we could ignore a '-N'.

I think our options are either add something to the unit-address or
use i2c-mux binding. Adding to the unit-address is not unprecedented.
I did that for some of the register bit level bindings where you have
a node for different bits at the same address. The downside is
unit-address is bus specific, so we'd have to add that for multiple
buses. For the i2c-mux, it's perhaps a bit complex and I'm not sure
what if anything you'd have to do to manage the mux that's not really
there.

Rob