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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87173C54EBC for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 13:23:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230288AbjAGNXS (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2023 08:23:18 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54372 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229904AbjAGNXO (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2023 08:23:14 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37F0D57932 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 05:23:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id m7so3622606wrn.10 for ; Sat, 07 Jan 2023 05:23:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=K4D1FN6eoWh6/baEX5q5IhUe1DAOLv2u6UT+9a6+KXo=; b=HgVvj6Lvf1kT1S13QgbEY1hX2YQIt4Tg9f9o4ln/tSbFzVvqrgAL5tc5bGWpL/MQ0S rEUEVMJm1tuGubqk6C4J3rM45jhvhgA4OwhmTSmryJPzK0S1v966jXX12NVUfCA0OguR l9EhZElZa2ofhVzsxP/tokGHCBF76PuLWmVENy2nBmp465JyPZsxZ7kF9OmKiCqfxM5s utv7fWq6azCoC2Uy5BnP89PM18Cq4HF/E3EUa5Z7f/IcVnx4AF4uJ1T1E/1jFbnI0JOf uVwdfaylqR+BRIylcqDHxFA9+IK8qOZe8fir4opy9T9JbMMmrqF+DF2IfDCKd+ldYFJ4 A74Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=K4D1FN6eoWh6/baEX5q5IhUe1DAOLv2u6UT+9a6+KXo=; b=USFrtBikFMWy6l4n5L4BZXW/5eIv9RbBohlKEpyIrV0PutYwc1AE5HxJ1CiDliuBhl sCjdFT+bguiPKN7+MBk4c05sqdEn4uZZtS4NCcuxd3gbvIwpVO1z2mWg0VZyRX3c4nTM ol/CKRbPCK56lFpIHXOIjmyxBXvO7llRMw6TWTw2VA0DGMgDM4gVM9n0mtvj4S0n5tB/ alMEabIgi80nIhEPz7/5vSNLV86sCkWYAkE4BbnPb+sSgcZGFFMo43ygGkCyzxKzXwM2 8AazMZ6dfhUAODDDSVScrRxmheUoHsddCPiTyHxCmcDP8ptBvlJYCfDyLZyppPDTQsOR 9aHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2koimh/42w3qZONlcahgtTeRwc82oVunXARmZ5QfNUvKMNinbHf3 soWMtNzXAWsd5LsIjgqK83VSZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXt8rJ+gmrzzwuVyvcafa8P6rsX9w8GvR+yJ3ia+IO6yFnBWk/w5pE1qGkuFyw8Ftqd6qRyj7w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1566:b0:242:2b3c:c7e with SMTP id 6-20020a056000156600b002422b3c0c7emr53021473wrz.17.1673097791738; Sat, 07 Jan 2023 05:23:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.109] ([178.197.216.144]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s1-20020a5d4ec1000000b002882600e8a0sm3973599wrv.12.2023.01.07.05.23.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Jan 2023 05:23:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <967cc7b7-f0bb-de37-52b9-7bfab05eadd7@linaro.org> Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 14:23:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: mmc: fsl-imx-esdhc: allow more compatible combinations Content-Language: en-US To: Andreas Kemnade Cc: ulf.hansson@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, shawnguo@kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, kernel@pengutronix.de, festevam@gmail.com, linux-imx@nxp.com, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20230105213856.1828360-1-andreas@kemnade.info> <20230106203358.14878660@aktux> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski In-Reply-To: <20230106203358.14878660@aktux> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/01/2023 20:33, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 09:41:01 +0100 > Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 05/01/2023 22:38, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >>> Currently make dtbs_check shows lots of errors because imx*.dtsi does >>> not use single compatibles but combinations of them. >>> Allow all the combinations used there. >>> >>> Patches fixing the dtsi files according to binding documentation were >>> submitted multiple times and are commonly rejected, so relax the rules. >>> Example: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/72e1194e10ccb4f87aed96265114f0963e805092.camel@pengutronix.de/ >>> >>> Reason: compatibility of new dtbs with old kernels or bootloaders. >>> >>> This will significantly reduce noise on make dtbs_check. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade >>> --- >>> .../bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml | 24 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml >>> index dc6256f04b42..118ebb75f136 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-imx-esdhc.yaml >>> @@ -37,6 +37,30 @@ properties: >>> - fsl,imx8mm-usdhc >>> - fsl,imxrt1050-usdhc >>> - nxp,s32g2-usdhc >> >> You must drop the items from enum above. Binding saying: >> compatible="A" >> or: >> compatible="A", "B" >> >> is not correct. Either A is or is not compatible with B. >> > hmm, here we have A = B + some additional features > or > A = B + some additional features and additional quirks required. So why do you allow A alone? > > For the latter we have e.g. > A= > static const struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx6sx_data = { > .flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING > | ESDHC_FLAG_HAVE_CAP1 | ESDHC_FLAG_HS200 > | ESDHC_FLAG_STATE_LOST_IN_LPMODE > | ESDHC_FLAG_BROKEN_AUTO_CMD23, > }; > B= > static const struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx6sl_data = { > .flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING > | ESDHC_FLAG_HAVE_CAP1 | ESDHC_FLAG_ERR004536 > | ESDHC_FLAG_HS200 > | ESDHC_FLAG_BROKEN_AUTO_CMD23, > }; > > so there is the difference in ESDHC_FLAG_STATE_LOST_IN_LPMODE. > That might make no difference in some usage scenario (e.g. some bootloader > not doing any LPMODE), but I wonder why > we need to *enforce* specifying such half-compatible things. I asked to remove half-compatible. Not to enforce. Best regards, Krzysztof