From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
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: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:34:20 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJ5PxzM_VMP55m+6snkqyWSMSsdCOiUzYWkMTb3LkD5Mw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed58424e-e538-227a-37b5-b35fbe4f96ba@arm.com>
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> wrote:
[...]
>>> 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 ?
>>
>>
>> If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less
>> useful to have a shared less precise compatible value.
>>
>
> There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the
> standard command set will be shared.
>
>> What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't
>> expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead
>> we should have those as extensions on the side.
>>
>
> Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the
> deviations but generic one to handle the shared set.
>
>> I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same
>> bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc.
>>
>
> 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.
Rob
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>,
Neil Armstrong
<narmstrong-rdvid1DuHRBWk0Htik3J/w@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: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:34:20 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJ5PxzM_VMP55m+6snkqyWSMSsdCOiUzYWkMTb3LkD5Mw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed58424e-e538-227a-37b5-b35fbe4f96ba-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
>> wrote:
[...]
>>> 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 ?
>>
>>
>> If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less
>> useful to have a shared less precise compatible value.
>>
>
> There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the
> standard command set will be shared.
>
>> What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't
>> expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead
>> we should have those as extensions on the side.
>>
>
> Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the
> deviations but generic one to handle the shared set.
>
>> I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same
>> bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc.
>>
>
> 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.
Rob
--
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: robh@kernel.org (Rob Herring)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:34:20 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJ5PxzM_VMP55m+6snkqyWSMSsdCOiUzYWkMTb3LkD5Mw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed58424e-e538-227a-37b5-b35fbe4f96ba@arm.com>
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> wrote:
[...]
>>> 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 ?
>>
>>
>> If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less
>> useful to have a shared less precise compatible value.
>>
>
> There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the
> standard command set will be shared.
>
>> What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't
>> expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead
>> we should have those as extensions on the side.
>>
>
> Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the
> deviations but generic one to handle the shared set.
>
>> I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same
>> bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc.
>>
>
> 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.
Rob
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: robh@kernel.org (Rob Herring)
To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:34:20 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJ5PxzM_VMP55m+6snkqyWSMSsdCOiUzYWkMTb3LkD5Mw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed58424e-e538-227a-37b5-b35fbe4f96ba@arm.com>
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> wrote:
[...]
>>> 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 ?
>>
>>
>> If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less
>> useful to have a shared less precise compatible value.
>>
>
> There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the
> standard command set will be shared.
>
>> What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't
>> expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead
>> we should have those as extensions on the side.
>>
>
> Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the
> deviations but generic one to handle the shared set.
>
>> I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same
>> bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc.
>>
>
> 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.
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-11 13:34 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
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 [this message]
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=CAL_JsqJ5PxzM_VMP55m+6snkqyWSMSsdCOiUzYWkMTb3LkD5Mw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=robh@kernel.org \
--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=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
/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.