Re: [PATCH 4/4] dt-bindings: hv: Add dt-bindings for VMBus

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/01/2023 13:51, Saurabh Singh Sengar wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 12:43:40PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 17/01/2023 16:52, Saurabh Singh Sengar wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 04:41:22PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 17/01/2023 16:13, Saurabh Singh Sengar wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 07:55:13PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/01/2023 17:48, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
>>>>>>> Add dt-bindings for Hyper-V VMBus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/hv/msft,vmbus.yaml         | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, there is no "hv" hardware, so that's not correct location. If your
>>>>>> bindings describe firmware, this should go to firmware. Otherwise, this
>>>>>> does not look like suitable for DT. We do not describe software stuff in DT.
>>>>>
>>>>> VMBus is a virtual device this is simmilar to virtio. I can rename this folder to vmbus.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then virtio directory. The directories are per subsystems (hardware
>>>> classes).
>>>
>>> Apologies if I was not clear, I meant to say this is a device conceptually
>>> similar to virtio. But this driver has nothing to do with virtio, we should
>>
>> Bindings are for hardware, not drivers, so if the device serves the same
>> purpose, it's driver differences do not matter.
>>
>>> be creating a new folder for it OR I am fine moving it under bus if that's
>>> okay.
>>
>> Since you do not have children here, it's not really a bus to fit under
>> bus directory...
>>
>> Probably this should go together with virtio bindings to dedicated
>> hypervisor interfaces directory. We do not create directories for
>> specific solutions (implementations) with only one or few bindings.
>> Directories are for entire classes.
> 
> I am OK to keep it anywhere, but I believe virtio is not its correct place. I am also
> concern how will the virtio maintainers will perceive it. Ideally we should be renaming
> virtio to virtualization OR hypervisor OR something more generic where both virtio and
> VMBus can co-exist. Please let me know if renaming virtio is acceptable.

Yes, that's what I was thinking about. I think all of these should be in
one place, but named differently (with updates to MAINTAINERS place).

Best regards,
Krzysztof