[PATCH v5 6/8] Documentation: bindings: add compatible specific to legacy SCPI protocol

Rob Herring robh at kernel.org
Fri Nov 11 05:34:20 PST 2016

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/16 19:03, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com>
>> wrote:


>>> E.g. Amlogic follows most of the legacy protocol though it deviates in
>>> couple of things which we can handle with platform specific compatible
>>> (in the following patch in the series). When another user(Rockchip ?)
>>> make use of this legacy protocol, we can start using those platform
>>> specific compatible for deviations only.
>>> Is that not acceptable ?
>> If there's no shared legacy feature set, then it's probably less
>> useful to have a shared less precise compatible value.
> There is and will be some shared feature set for sure. At the least the
> standard command set will be shared.
>> What the main point I was trying to get across was that we shouldn't
>> expand the generic binding with per-vendor compatible fields, instead
>> we should have those as extensions on the side.
> Yes I get the point. We will have per-vendor compatibles for handle the
> deviations but generic one to handle the shared set.
>> I'm also a little apprehensive of using "legacy", it goes in the same
>> bucket as "misc". At some point 1.0 will be legacy too, etc.
> True and I agree, how about "arm,scpi-pre-1.0" instead ?

That's still meaningless. Convince me that multiple implementations
are identical, then we can have a common property. For example, how
many releases did ARM make before 1.0.


More information about the linux-amlogic mailing list