From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:34:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ccc12bc-9a05-47e3-8ab8-d1b0ad31159e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLW4JZHb0ncVUEefnKySA231EDgvCkY3xPdaJGf=uMJYg@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/11/16 14:12, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>> Required properties:
>>>>
>>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
>>>> +- compatible : should be
>>>> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or
>>>> above
>>>> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there
>>> many?
>>>
>>
>> I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not
>> officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very
>> early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific
>> compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason
>> to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks
>> based on them if needed.
>>
>> I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's
>> clear why we can't do version based compatible.
>
> This is exactly my point. By enumerate, I meant having platform
> specific compatibles. Having "arm,legacy-scpi" is pointless because
> who knows what version they followed and they may all be different.
>
OK, but IIUC Olof's concern wanted a generic one along with the platform
specific compatible which kind of makes sense as so far we have seen
some commonality between Amlogic and Rockchip.
E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in
couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible
(in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?)
make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform
specific compatible for deviations only.
Is that not acceptable ?
--
Regards,
Sudeep
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Neil Armstrong
<narmstrong-rdvid1DuHRBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
"devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-amlogic-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:34:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ccc12bc-9a05-47e3-8ab8-d1b0ad31159e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLW4JZHb0ncVUEefnKySA231EDgvCkY3xPdaJGf=uMJYg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
On 10/11/16 14:12, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>> Required properties:
>>>>
>>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
>>>> +- compatible : should be
>>>> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or
>>>> above
>>>> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there
>>> many?
>>>
>>
>> I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not
>> officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very
>> early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific
>> compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason
>> to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks
>> based on them if needed.
>>
>> I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's
>> clear why we can't do version based compatible.
>
> This is exactly my point. By enumerate, I meant having platform
> specific compatibles. Having "arm,legacy-scpi" is pointless because
> who knows what version they followed and they may all be different.
>
OK, but IIUC Olof's concern wanted a generic one along with the platform
specific compatible which kind of makes sense as so far we have seen
some commonality between Amlogic and Rockchip.
E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in
couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible
(in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?)
make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform
specific compatible for deviations only.
Is that not acceptable ?
--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:34:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ccc12bc-9a05-47e3-8ab8-d1b0ad31159e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLW4JZHb0ncVUEefnKySA231EDgvCkY3xPdaJGf=uMJYg@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/11/16 14:12, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>> Required properties:
>>>>
>>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
>>>> +- compatible : should be
>>>> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or
>>>> above
>>>> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there
>>> many?
>>>
>>
>> I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not
>> officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very
>> early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific
>> compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason
>> to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks
>> based on them if needed.
>>
>> I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's
>> clear why we can't do version based compatible.
>
> This is exactly my point. By enumerate, I meant having platform
> specific compatibles. Having "arm,legacy-scpi" is pointless because
> who knows what version they followed and they may all be different.
>
OK, but IIUC Olof's concern wanted a generic one along with the platform
specific compatible which kind of makes sense as so far we have seen
some commonality between Amlogic and Rockchip.
E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in
couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible
(in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?)
make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform
specific compatible for deviations only.
Is that not acceptable ?
--
Regards,
Sudeep
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:34:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ccc12bc-9a05-47e3-8ab8-d1b0ad31159e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLW4JZHb0ncVUEefnKySA231EDgvCkY3xPdaJGf=uMJYg@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/11/16 14:12, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/16 01:22, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:52:09PM -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds specific compatible to support legacy SCPI protocol.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 4 +++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> index d1882c4540d0..ebd03fc93135 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>> Required properties:
>>>>
>>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
>>>> +- compatible : should be
>>>> + * "arm,scpi" : For implementations complying to SCPI v1.0 or
>>>> above
>>>> + * "arm,legacy-scpi" : For implementations complying pre SCPI v1.0
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer that we explicitly enumerate the old versions. Are there
>>> many?
>>>
>>
>> I understand your concern, but this legacy SCPI protocol was not
>> officially released. It was just WIP which vendors picked up from very
>> early releases. Since they are not numbered, it's hard to have specific
>> compatibles with different versions until v1.0. That's one of the reason
>> to retain platform specific compatible so that we can add any quirks
>> based on them if needed.
>>
>> I will probably add these information in the commit log so that it's
>> clear why we can't do version based compatible.
>
> This is exactly my point. By enumerate, I meant having platform
> specific compatibles. Having "arm,legacy-scpi" is pointless because
> who knows what version they followed and they may all be different.
>
OK, but IIUC Olof's concern wanted a generic one along with the platform
specific compatible which kind of makes sense as so far we have seen
some commonality between Amlogic and Rockchip.
E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in
couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible
(in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?)
make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform
specific compatible for deviations only.
Is that not acceptable ?
--
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-10 14:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 116+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-03 4:52 [PATCH 0/8] firmware: arm_scpi: add support for legacy SCPI protocol Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] firmware: arm_scpi: add command indirection to support legacy commands Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] firmware: arm_scpi: increase MAX_DVFS_OPPS to 16 entries Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] firmware: arm_scpi: add alternative legacy structures, functions and macros Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] firmware: arm_scpi: allow firmware with get_capabilities not implemented Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] Documentation: bindings: decouple juno specific details from generic binding Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 1:18 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 1:18 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 1:18 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-03 4:52 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 14:32 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 14:32 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 14:32 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 14:32 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 1:22 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 1:22 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 1:22 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 1:22 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 10:26 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 10:26 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 10:26 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 10:26 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 14:12 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 14:12 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 14:12 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 14:12 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 14:34 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2016-11-10 14:34 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 14:34 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 14:34 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 19:03 ` Olof Johansson
2016-11-10 19:03 ` Olof Johansson
2016-11-10 19:03 ` Olof Johansson
2016-11-10 19:03 ` Olof Johansson
2016-11-11 7:48 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-11 7:48 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-11 7:48 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-11 7:48 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-11 13:34 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-11 13:34 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-11 13:34 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-11 13:34 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-11 14:19 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-11 14:19 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-11 14:19 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-11 14:19 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-15 16:36 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-15 16:36 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-15 16:36 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-15 16:36 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] Documentation: bindings: Add support for Amlogic GXBB " Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-10 1:23 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 1:23 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 1:23 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-10 1:23 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-03 4:52 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] firmware: arm_scpi: add support for legacy SCPI compatible Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 4:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-03 9:12 ` [PATCH 0/8] firmware: arm_scpi: add support for legacy SCPI protocol Neil Armstrong
2016-11-03 9:12 ` Neil Armstrong
2016-11-03 9:12 ` Neil Armstrong
2016-11-08 14:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 14:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 14:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 14:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 15:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 15:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 15:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 15:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 15:40 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 15:40 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 15:40 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 16:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 16:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 16:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 17:37 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 17:37 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 17:37 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 17:46 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 17:46 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 17:46 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-21 15:04 ` Ryan Harkin
2016-11-21 15:04 ` Ryan Harkin
2016-11-21 15:04 ` Ryan Harkin
2016-11-21 15:04 ` Ryan Harkin
2016-11-21 15:12 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-21 15:12 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-21 15:12 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-21 15:12 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 16:08 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 16:08 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 16:08 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-11-08 16:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 16:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-08 16:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7ccc12bc-9a05-47e3-8ab8-d1b0ad31159e@arm.com \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=narmstrong@baylibre.com \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.