Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: i3c: svc: add compatible string i3c: silvaco,i3c-target-v1

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Cc: Frank Li <Frank.li@nxp.com>,
	robh@kernel.org, alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com,
	conor.culhane@silvaco.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	imx@lists.linux.dev, jirislaby@kernel.org, joe@perches.com,
	linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, miquel.raynal@bootlin.com,
	zbigniew.lukwinski@linux.intel.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: i3c: svc: add compatible string i3c: silvaco,i3c-target-v1
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 10:33:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3199c245-3d2d-49e8-951e-2b059de4d683@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240116-bleach-herbicide-48d636967134@wendy>

On 16/01/2024 10:30, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 08:24:20AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 16/01/2024 03:29, Frank Li wrote:
>>>>> 	Patches were accepted after discussion, what you ponit to. So I
>>>>> think everyone agree on the name 'silvaco,i3c-master-v1'.
>>>>> 	I plan send next version to fix auto build error. Any additional
>>>>> comments about this?
>>>>
>>>> I still do not see how did you address Rob's comment and his point is
>>>> valid. You just did not reply to it.
>>>
>>> See https://lore.kernel.org/imx/ZXCiaKfMYYShoiXK@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810/
>>
>> First of all, that's not the answer to Rob's email, but some other
>> thread which is 99% ignored by Rob (unless he has filters for
>> "@Rob"...). Therefore no, it does not count as valid answer.
>>
>> Second, explanation does not make sense. There is no argument granting
>> you exception from SoC specific compatibles.
> 
> The patch could have been applied two months ago had Frank done as
> was requested (multiple times). I don't understand the resistance
> towards doing so given the process has taken way way longer as a result.

I think that Rob's comment was just skipped and original master binding
was merged without addressing it. I don't want to repeat the same
process for the "target". Indeed I could point this earlier... if I only
knew that Rob pointed out that issue.

Best regards,
Krzysztof