Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-194335-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 08:09:01 -0700
From: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley
	<conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio
	<konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Amrit Anand <quic_amrianan@quicinc.com>,
        "Peter
 Griffin" <peter.griffin@linaro.org>,
        Caleb Connolly
	<caleb.connolly@linaro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>, Doug Anderson
	<dianders@chromium.org>,
        Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai
	<wenst@chromium.org>,
        Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>,
        "Humphreys,
 Jonathan" <j-humphreys@ti.com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        "Jon
 Hunter" <jonathanh@nvidia.org>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>,
        <boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 5/9] dt-bindings: board: Document board-ids for
 Qualcomm devices
Message-ID: <20240526115810183-0700.eberman@hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com>
References: <20240521-board-ids-v3-0-e6c71d05f4d2@quicinc.com>
 <20240521-board-ids-v3-5-e6c71d05f4d2@quicinc.com>
 <20240525-parachute-plutonium-ef8d1472ff50@spud>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240525-parachute-plutonium-ef8d1472ff50@spud>

On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 06:08:46PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 11:38:02AM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> > +
> > +allOf:
> > +  # either describe soc or soc-version; it's confusing to have both
> 
> Why not just use the one that has the most information and discard the
> others? If your dtb picker for this platform doesn't care about the soc
> version, then just don't look at that cell?

The dtb picker for the platform doesn't know whether to care about the
SoC version/platform version/whatever. That's a property of the DTB
itself and I don't think it makes much sense to bake that into the DTB
picker which would otherwise be unaware of this.

> 
> Likewise for platform and PMIC, why can't you ignore the cells you don't
> care about, rather than having a new property for each variant? Nothing
> in this patch explains why multiple variants are required rather than
> just dealing with the most informational.
>

Sure, I will explain in future revision.

- Elliot