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 D08FDC4332F for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B931C61212 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237934AbhIXQMf (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:12:35 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:54652 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233752AbhIXQM0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:12:26 -0400 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18OGAhPV102811; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:10:43 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1632499843; bh=9Pop6oXiHVPFX2sciva/YG9DSuUyCmsf/YRPoCW7xjw=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=YtkIYS+011vlOBa52SP5+7lT3ZV6uxBHBh5TXBo5GPudnXjq/+jPcqyl4vJg79BQr CtTOA1OwZ/WEZt13z3y5+eAUC8Q4qOnQzRHBdyZ2Vt6DtYCbcBeQr/DxXpPSa2g0CE CTEj+m9arI82s79NY60Yjt1Oc3mKDOFCxwPO87nw= Received: from DFLE106.ent.ti.com (dfle106.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.27]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 18OGAhNF116842 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:10:43 -0500 Received: from DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) by DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) 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 11:10:42 -0500 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) 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 11:10:42 -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 18OGAglw000461; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:10:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-dsp: Remove board-specific compatible from DT example To: Sinthu Raja , Rob Herring , Mathieu Poirier , Bjorn Andersson , Ohad Ben-Cohen CC: , , , , Nishanth Menon , Sinthu Raja , "Nagalla, Hari" References: <20210917095426.19277-1-sinthu.raja@ti.com> <20210917095426.19277-3-sinthu.raja@ti.com> From: Suman Anna Message-ID: <4d43e927-3998-e9a9-87a6-6036b769a975@ti.com> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:10:42 -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: <20210917095426.19277-3-sinthu.raja@ti.com> 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-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > > 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. 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. 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. > 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. regards Suman > #address-cells = <2>; > #size-cells = <2>; > >