Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set additionalProperties to true

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08/04/2024 01:50, Peng Fan wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set
>> additionalProperties to true
>>
>> On 07/04/2024 12:04, Peng Fan wrote:
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set
>>>> additionalProperties to true
>>>>
>>>> On 07/04/2024 02:37, Peng Fan wrote:
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: set
>>>>>> additionalProperties to true
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/04/2024 14:39, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When adding vendor extension protocols, there is dt-schema warning:
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>> imx,scmi.example.dtb: scmi: 'protocol@81', 'protocol@84' do not
>>>>>>> match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Set additionalProperties to true to address the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not see anything addressed here, except making the binding
>>>>>> accepting anything anywhere...
>>>>>
>>>>> I not wanna add vendor protocols in arm,scmi.yaml, so will introduce
>>>>> a new yaml imx.scmi.yaml which add i.MX SCMI protocol extension.
>>>>>
>>>>> With additionalProperties set to false, I not know how, please suggest.
>>>>
>>>> First of all, you cannot affect negatively existing devices (their
>>>> bindings) and your patch does exactly that. This should make you
>>>> thing what is the correct approach...
>>>>
>>>> Rob gave you the comment about missing compatible - you still did not
>>>> address that.
>>>
>>> I added the compatible in patch 2/6 in the examples "compatible =
>> "arm,scmi";"
>>
>> So you claim that your vendor extensions are the same or fully compatible
>> with arm,scmi and you add nothing... Are your extensions/protocol valid for
>> arm,scmi?
> 
> Yes. They are valid for arm,scmi.
> 
>  If yes, why is this in separate binding. If no, why you use someone
>> else's compatible?
> 
> Per SCMI Spec
> 0x80-0xFF: Reserved for vendor or platform-specific extensions to
> this interface
> 
> i.MX use 0x81 for BBM, 0x84 for MISC. But other vendors will use
> the id for their own protocol.

So how are they valid for arm,scmi? I don't understand.



Best regards,
Krzysztof