Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add herobrine-r1

From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
	kgodara@codeaurora.org, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
	Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>,
	Prasad Malisetty <pmaliset@codeaurora.org>,
	quic_rjendra@quicinc.com, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add herobrine-r1
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 13:32:36 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=URxmrQmC4snL7QoZyDQxdcFHy=c9yXkfE+sW2fN447bg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=WQ0gR18x9rhioLtYGO3oWtny1c52YaiZHUG=PG03d+OQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 5:01 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:50 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Either we leave it as is - which follows my interpretation of what the DT
> > > spec says - or we (and the DT maitainers) agree that it shouldn't be
> > > there (because this dtb won't run on any random qcom,sc7180 anyways) at
> > > all.
> >
> > I'm curious what part of the DT spec says that we should have the SoC
> > in there? I know I've always done it, but it's always just been
> > following the examples of what was done before. When talking about the
> > root node, I see this in the `devicetree-specification-v0.4-rc1` spec:
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Specifies a list of platform architectures with which this platform is
> > compatible. This property can be used by operating systems in
> > selecting platform specific code. The recommended form of the property
> > value is: "manufacturer,model"
> >
> > For example:
> > compatible = "fsl,mpc8572ds"
> >
> > ---
> >
> > That doesn't say anything about putting the SoC there.
> >
> >
> > I would also note that I'd be at least moderately inclined to land
> > things as-is and deal with this in a follow-up patch, though I'm happy
> > to spin if that's what people agree upon too. This is not a new
> > problem and so it doesn't seem like it makes sense to glom dealing
> > with it into this patch series...
>
> I noticed that you applied the first 4 patches in the series (thanks!)
> but not this one. Are we waiting to get agreement on this before
> landing? As per above, I think it'd be OK to land as-is and then I'm
> happy to do a follow-up patch to clean this up since this isn't a new
> issue. Having this patch outstanding makes it a little confusing with
> the other cleanup patches that I'm posting... ;-)

I didn't hear anything and I was sending a new version of the cleanup
patch series, so I:

* Added this last patch to the end of the cleanup series.

* Addressed the "-regulator" suffix issue that Stephen pointed out.

* Didn't remove the SoC compatible from the top-level node in this
patch, but added follow-on patches in the series that do it.

Hopefully that looks good to everyone. I removed both of Stephen's and
Matthias's review tags from the v3 version.

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220202132301.v3.12.I5604b7af908e8bbe709ac037a6a8a6ba8a2bfa94@changeid

-Doug