From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
"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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:36:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <88a5a995-05fc-2369-be00-805469b8e853@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4e31f1d9-61b9-53a9-bd0c-dd5e452faece@arm.com>
On 11/11/16 14:19, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/16 13:34, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ?
>>
>> That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations
>> are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how
>> many releases did ARM make before 1.0.
>>
>
> None officially, so I tend to agree with you on this.
>
> But so far we have seen some commonality between Rockchip and Amlogic
> implementations, which in fact shares some commonality with early
> release of SCPI from ARM (there are based on the same SCP code base,
> which is closed source and released to partners only). ARM improved the
> specification and the code base before the official release but by then
> it was adopted(as usual we were late ;))
>
> IMO, it's might be useful to have more generic say "arm,scpi-pre-1.0"
> and platform specific "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi"
>
Rob and Olof, is it convincing enough reason to have generic compatible?
Or you prefer to drop it ?
I prefer to have "arm,scpi-pre-1.0". IMO it's useful, let me know. I
need to send PR as it's getting late now.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:36:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <88a5a995-05fc-2369-be00-805469b8e853@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4e31f1d9-61b9-53a9-bd0c-dd5e452faece@arm.com>
On 11/11/16 14:19, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/16 13:34, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ?
>>
>> That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations
>> are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how
>> many releases did ARM make before 1.0.
>>
>
> None officially, so I tend to agree with you on this.
>
> But so far we have seen some commonality between Rockchip and Amlogic
> implementations, which in fact shares some commonality with early
> release of SCPI from ARM (there are based on the same SCP code base,
> which is closed source and released to partners only). ARM improved the
> specification and the code base before the official release but by then
> it was adopted(as usual we were late ;))
>
> IMO, it's might be useful to have more generic say "arm,scpi-pre-1.0"
> and platform specific "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi"
>
Rob and Olof, is it convincing enough reason to have generic compatible?
Or you prefer to drop it ?
I prefer to have "arm,scpi-pre-1.0". IMO it's useful, let me know. I
need to send PR as it's getting late now.
--
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:36:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <88a5a995-05fc-2369-be00-805469b8e853@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4e31f1d9-61b9-53a9-bd0c-dd5e452faece@arm.com>
On 11/11/16 14:19, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 11/11/16 13:34, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ?
>>
>> That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations
>> are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how
>> many releases did ARM make before 1.0.
>>
>
> None officially, so I tend to agree with you on this.
>
> But so far we have seen some commonality between Rockchip and Amlogic
> implementations, which in fact shares some commonality with early
> release of SCPI from ARM (there are based on the same SCP code base,
> which is closed source and released to partners only). ARM improved the
> specification and the code base before the official release but by then
> it was adopted(as usual we were late ;))
>
> IMO, it's might be useful to have more generic say "arm,scpi-pre-1.0"
> and platform specific "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi"
>
Rob and Olof, is it convincing enough reason to have generic compatible?
Or you prefer to drop it ?
I prefer to have "arm,scpi-pre-1.0". IMO it's useful, let me know. I
need to send PR as it's getting late now.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-15 16:36 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
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 [this message]
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=88a5a995-05fc-2369-be00-805469b8e853@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.