[PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom-ipcc: add missing compatible for SM8450

[PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom-ipcc: add missing compatible for SM8450

[David Heidelberg]

Adds forgotten compatible and update SPDX header.

Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml
index 866efb278813..825d29367737 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
 %YAML 1.2
 ---
 $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml#
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ properties:
           - qcom,sm6350-ipcc
           - qcom,sm8250-ipcc
           - qcom,sm8350-ipcc
+          - qcom,sm8450-ipcc
           - qcom,sc7280-ipcc
       - const: qcom,ipcc
 
-- 
2.35.1

[PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom-ipcc: add missing properties into example

[David Heidelberg]

These missing required properties are needed for
smp2p binding reference checks.

Also includes cosmetic change to the example formatting.

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
---
v3:
 - add Krzysztof R-b

 .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml        | 11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml
index 825d29367737..a31f1f098246 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.yaml
@@ -76,9 +76,14 @@ examples:
 
         smp2p-modem {
                 compatible = "qcom,smp2p";
-                interrupts-extended = <&ipcc_mproc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS
-                                IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
-                mboxes = <&ipcc_mproc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P>;
+                qcom,smem = <443>, <429>;
+                interrupts-extended = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_LPASS
+                                             IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P
+                                             IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
+                mboxes = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_LPASS
+                                IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P>;
 
+                qcom,local-pid = <0>;
+                qcom,remote-pid = <2>;
                 /* Other SMP2P fields */
         };
-- 
2.35.1

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom-ipcc: add missing compatible for SM8450

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 25/04/2022 15:47, David Heidelberg wrote:
> Adds forgotten compatible and update SPDX header.

You need to explain what is this "forgotten compatible". It's to vague.

The SPDX update lacks answer to "why". There is no reason to do it, so
please explain why it is needed.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom-ipcc: add missing compatible for SM8450

[David Heidelberg]

On 25/04/2022 15:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 15:47, David Heidelberg wrote:
>> Adds forgotten compatible and update SPDX header.
> You need to explain what is this "forgotten compatible". It's to vague.
Forgotten by someone who implemented it in driver. Hope that clarify it 
for you and possibly other readers. Btw. qcom,*sm8450* compatibles are 
widely used and fact that `make dtbs_check` noticed it missing here 
isn't suprising..
>
> The SPDX update lacks answer to "why". There is no reason to do it, so
> please explain why it is needed.

Please read https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html (red colored text).

I personally encountered situation, where usage GPL license without 
specific `-only` or `-or-later` caused unnecessary confusion and 
uncertainty.

>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

-- 
David Heidelberg
Consultant Software Engineer

Matrix: @okias:matrix.org

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom-ipcc: add missing compatible for SM8450

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 25/04/2022 16:05, David Heidelberg wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 15:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/04/2022 15:47, David Heidelberg wrote:
>>> Adds forgotten compatible and update SPDX header.
>> You need to explain what is this "forgotten compatible". It's to vague.
> Forgotten by someone who implemented it in driver. Hope that clarify it 
> for you and possibly other readers. Btw. qcom,*sm8450* compatibles are 
> widely used and fact that `make dtbs_check` noticed it missing here 
> isn't suprising..

This has to be in the commit msg, that you document compatibles already
being used. "forgotten" does not explain that.

>>
>> The SPDX update lacks answer to "why". There is no reason to do it, so
>> please explain why it is needed.
> 
> Please read https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html (red colored text).

The kernel lists it as valid SPDX and we did not deprecate it. For the
kernel it is still considered valid.

Feel free to propose otherwise but then you need to explain it in commit
msg and update LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0.

> 
> I personally encountered situation, where usage GPL license without 
> specific `-only` or `-or-later` caused unnecessary confusion and 
> uncertainty.

Could be, I am not arguing with it. Yet kernel explicitly makes it a
valid SPDX.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom-ipcc: add missing compatible for SM8450

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 04:05:57PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 15:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 25/04/2022 15:47, David Heidelberg wrote:
> > > Adds forgotten compatible and update SPDX header.
> > You need to explain what is this "forgotten compatible". It's to vague.
> Forgotten by someone who implemented it in driver. Hope that clarify it for
> you and possibly other readers. Btw. qcom,*sm8450* compatibles are widely
> used and fact that `make dtbs_check` noticed it missing here isn't
> suprising..
> > 
> > The SPDX update lacks answer to "why". There is no reason to do it, so
> > please explain why it is needed.
> 
> Please read https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html (red colored text).
> 
> I personally encountered situation, where usage GPL license without specific
> `-only` or `-or-later` caused unnecessary confusion and uncertainty.

I don't mind changing these, but please do a tree wide change for all 
bindings, not an 'while I'm here also change X' change.

Rob