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

[Peng Fan]

> 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 at nxp.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When adding vendor extension protocols, there is dt-schema warning:
> >>>>> "
> >>>>> imx,scmi.example.dtb: scmi: 'protocol at 81', 'protocol at 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.

I use a separate binding here is to avoid add more vendor stuff
in arm,scmi.yaml. Otherwise we will have to add a list as:
if nxp
xxx
else if qcom
xxx
else if xx
yyy.

I could add back i.mx extension to arm,scmi.yaml if people
agree.

Thanks
Peng.

> 
> Maybe your binding is correct, feel free to convince me (and read first writing
> bindings).
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof