From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF165C433FE for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC29E61261 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1345266AbhIXR4o (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:56:44 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:46330 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1345184AbhIXR4n (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:56:43 -0400 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18OHt0bd008169; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:55:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1632506100; bh=yQOiPS81YD35u7khcbtBmPFF6WtnAm8YrOhmRg/vpAo=; h=Subject:From:To:CC:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=GlfUJ0B+iyiovxK1opHm+cavW2tYCSy7tOBvDD0ROJ9IW4/OMujHvkpBkOJXRKg8j qaV4jx0OC/jQF63VshCnAbP4uVPrw7oOSVYNmygR+xDU73vcCG395kcunsibVfdNZ9 C/cqCFmJ0t6X0qvSlRwbe3J7rkmOFFil8XCtlxdg= Received: from DLEE104.ent.ti.com (dlee104.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.34]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 18OHt0Kd073031 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:55:00 -0500 Received: from DLEE102.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.32) by DLEE104.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.14; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:54:59 -0500 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DLEE102.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.14 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:55:00 -0500 Received: from [10.250.37.219] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0327.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18OHsxxQ053417; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:54:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-dsp: Remove board-specific compatible from DT example From: Suman Anna To: Nishanth Menon , Sinthu Raja CC: Rob Herring , Mathieu Poirier , Bjorn Andersson , Ohad Ben-Cohen , , , , , Sinthu Raja , "Nagalla, Hari" References: <20210917095426.19277-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com> <20210917095426.19277-3-sinthu.raja@ti.com> <4d43e927-3998-e9a9-87a6-6036b769a975@ti.com> <20210924162920.mvnzcibfm7s265us@boxing> Message-ID: <6a6a0d3a-522c-d01c-d3b8-a13488d0c736@ti.com> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:54:59 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org Hi Sinthu, On 9/24/21 12:25 PM, Suman Anna wrote: > On 9/24/21 11:29 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> On 11:10-20210924, Suman Anna wrote: >>> Hi Sinthu, >>> >>> On 9/17/21 4:54 AM, Sinthu Raja wrote: >>>> From: Sinthu Raja >>>> >>>> The example includes a board-specific compatible property, this is >>>> wrong as the example should be board agnostic and gets in the way of >>>> additions for newer platforms. Replace the same with a generic soc >>>> node. >>> >>> What board specific property? This description looks wrong. Can you please repost dropping the Fixes line, and modifying the patch description as follows: dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-dsp: Cleanup SoC compatible from DT example The K3 DSP binding example used the root-node with a SoC compatible property originally to address the dt_binding_check warnings resulting from using a value of 2 for #address-cells and #size-cells as per most common usage on K3 SoCs. Clean this up and replace it with a generic soc node to keep it agnostic of the SoC or board compatibles that are outside the scope of this binding. With that, Acked-by: Suman Anna Please update the R5F binding patch as well similarly. You can retain the already received Acks. regards Suman >> >> See https://lore.kernel.org/all/1631794913.472895.1119414.nullmailer@robh.at.kernel.org/ >> > > Yes, I understand you are now trying to add/scale for a board compatible and > your patch is what triggered the warnings. > > I see "ti,j721e" as an SoC compatible not board-specific. > >>> >>>> >>>> Fixes: 2a2180206ab6 ("dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add bindings for C66x DSPs on TI K3 SoCs") >>> >>> What error are you trying to fix exactly? The example used below is actually how >>> it exactly appears in the J721E dts files, and there are no errors with >>> dt_binding_check. >> >> The rproc binding should have nothing to do with j721e SoC node >> description. it should describe the rproc node that is described in >> binding. > > You can go back and look at my original dt-binding submissions and the reasons > for me to add a root-cell. They are to suppress the warnings seen with using two > address-cells in the DSP example nodes which use the actual node definitions > from the J721E SoC. > > v1: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20200325201839.15896-2-s-anna@ti.com/ > v2: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20200521001006.2725-3-s-anna@ti.com/ > v3: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20200612224914.7634-5-s-anna@ti.com/ > >> >>> >>> This is more a cleanup than a fix. You can look through the original binding >>> submission patches to see why it is done like this. >> >> This is blocking any updates we would want to do in k3.yaml. > > One other way would have been to just add the new enforced compatible (since you > are actually changing the k3.yaml binding and diverging from what was there > before) here along with your updates, if you didn't want to add it in the > previous compatible way. > > FWIW, there are no dt_binding_check errors on this binding before your > modifications, that's why I am asking what is the "Fixes" with the original patch. > >>> >>> If this is triggered by the changes you are making to k3.yaml file as part of >>> the J721E EAIK changes, then you probably may want to look at how you are doing >> >>> that again. Looks like the k3.yaml file is being modified now to enforce >>> "board-compatible", "soc-compatible" which may have triggered an error in this file. >>> >>> Please evaluate if you need to modify it to support just the "soc-compatible" as >>> one of the items. >> >> See above link. This is not to do with eaik / sk. I am trying to >> standardize the board definitions in yaml for k3 and this binding >> specifically is getting in the way. > > Yeah finally. I remember I had asked you about why we are doing it differently > between AM65x and J721E/J7200. +1 for the direction. > >> >> >> I still don't understand what your contention is here. Are you arguing >> that the binding example is correct and should be tied to a platform? > > I am not saying it should be tied to a platform, but I have used the example as > it appears on J721E SoCs. I am commenting that it is not a "Fixes:" and the > patch description needs updates. > >> >> >> Yes, I know I can introduce oneOf and a little more intricate solution, >> but besides that, i disagree that a rproc binding should even >> have SoC specific top level node description in it. > > Please see the reasoning in the original submissions. I could not use 2 > address-cells and size-cells without the top-level node additions, and I didn't > want to use bogus examples. > > Yes, the intricate solution would not have triggered the warning in this > example, but your current change is also breaking your previous compatibility. I > understand that the reality is always actually a "board-compatible", > "soc-compatible", but as per your previous k3.yaml definition, all one needed > was just a "ti,j721e" compatible in their dts files. Changing it now and calling > the usage in this example "wrong" is not right either IMO. > > >> a) rproc.yaml does'nt even describe the SoC. soc.yaml does. >> b) The node property examples are supposed to be examples not tied to a >> specific SoC. > > I would rather not use a completely bogus example since it is not very useful > for customers trying to understand the binding. My philosophy has always been to > define an example as it appears on an actual SoC so that it is easier for > customers to comprehend the binding and example while comparing it to actual dts > nodes. > > regards > Suman > >> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sinthu Raja >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Changes since V2: >>>> * review comment updates, including simplifying the changes, commit >>>> message and $subject updates. >>>> >>>> V2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210818074030.1877-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com/ >>>> V1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210817152005.21575-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com/ >>>> >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml | 4 +--- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml >>>> index 6070456a7b67..5ec6505ac408 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/ti,k3-dsp-rproc.yaml >>>> @@ -133,9 +133,7 @@ unevaluatedProperties: false >>>> >>>> examples: >>>> - | >>>> - / { >>>> - model = "Texas Instruments K3 J721E SoC"; >>>> - compatible = "ti,j721e"; >>>> + soc { >>> >>> While this may be resolving the dt_bindings_check you might be seeing with the >>> modified k3.yaml, note that "soc" property is not used on K3 dts files, you >>> might be creating confusion for people who look at this example and the actual >>> usage. >> >> >> It is a common usage model. NOTE: these are example nodes and NOT meant >> as SoC representation. I dont see the confusion. >> > > > >