Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: i3c: xlnx: Add IBI and hot-join capability properties

[Michal Simek]

On 8/19/26 01:29, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 08:36:16PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 18/08/2026 14:02, Patil, Shubham Sanjay wrote:
> > > Hi Krzysztof,
> > >
> > > On 8/17/2026 2:20 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > [You don't often get email from krzk@xxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> > > >
> > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 05:21:53PM +0530, Shubham Patil wrote:
> > > > > In-Band Interrupt and Hot-Join are synthesis-time options of the AXI I3C
> > > > > IP. Describe them with two boolean properties.
> > > > >
> > > > > A Hot-Join request is acknowledged by the IBI machinery, so a hot-join
> > > > > capable design is always IBI capable as well. Both events are reported
> > > > > through the controller interrupt, which is therefore required whenever
> > > > > the capability is present.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Shubham Patil <shubhamsanjay.patil@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    .../bindings/i3c/xlnx,axi-i3c-1.0.yaml        | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >    1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > So the same SoC using this core will have different synthesis options?
> > > > IOW, why isn't this implied by a specific compatible?
> > >
> > > Yes. This core is not part of the SoC's fixed hardware: it is a design
> > > compiled into the FPGA fabric. When the core is added to a design in
> > > Vivado, IBI and Hot-Join are options that are turned on or off, so two
> > > builds -- or two instances in the same build -- can use the identical IP
> > > version and still differ in which features are present.
> > >
> > > The compatible string identifies the IP core and its version. It says
> >
> > Well, you miss SoC compatibles so you cannot use argument of IP core.
> > Although I do accept argument of two instances in a SoC having this
> > different.
>
> How are SoC compatibles relevant here? It's an IP for FPGA fabric, so
> even if you made some sort of zynq specific compatible (which I am not
> advocating for to be clear) the IP configuration options may vary
> between synthesis runs, so a SoC-specific compatible doesn't help.

SOC compatibility make no sense here. It is soft IP. It can be in any fpga board 
with/without hard blocks (ARM cores) in different configuration per instance.
You can have unlimited (obviously resource limited) amount of IPs in mixed 
configuration in the same device if you want/need.

Thanks,
Michal