[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm64: dts: mediatek: Add mt8395-evk board

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 05/09/2023 11:36, Macpaul Lin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/4/23 20:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 	
>>
>> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until you 
>> have verified the sender or the content.
>>
>> On 04/09/2023 11:50, Macpaul Lin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/4/23 17:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until you 
>>>> have verified the sender or the content.
>>>>
>>>> On 04/09/2023 11:20, Macpaul Lin wrote:
>>>>> Add bindings for the MediaTek mt8395-evk board.
>>>>> The mt8359-evk board is also named as "Genio 1200-EVK".
>>>>> MT8195 and MT8395 are the same family series SoC could share
>>>>
>>>> How can be the same and have different numbers? You sill need dedicated
>>>> compatible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The SoCs mt8195 and mt8395 are designed for different market application 
>>> and physical characteristics, using different efuse values for 
>>> distinction. The booting flow and configurations are controllered by the 
>>> boot loaders, firmware, and TF-A. Therefore, the part numbers and 
>>> procurement channels are different. The detail information of these 
>>> efuse values is proprietary, so I cant disclose it futher. Hence the 
>>> most of peripheral drivers and base address are almost the same.
>>
>> 1. Drivers? So we talk about compatibility, not the same.
>> 2. "almost the same" is not the same. Follow the guidelines for writing
>> bindings.
>>
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> After internal confirmation and discussion, it can be confirmed that the 
> MT8195 and MT8395 are identical SoCs from to binding's perspective. 

I am sorry, but I really do not care what you internally discussed about
bindings. I do not think your internal review respect existing
guidelines. You talked about drivers, not "bindings perspective", so
your internal discussion is clearly discussing something else.

> MediaTek hope the mt8395 boards could directly use mt8195.dtsi, without 
> the need to create a separate mt8395.dtsi to include mt8195.dtsi. 
> Therefore, we hope to fully adopt the bindings of mt8195. However, I 
> will submit a revised patch for compatible since they are different boards.

You can disagree but then I expect arguments from your side.

Best regards,
Krzysztof