[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251118-saint-flashbulb-995844e01ec1@spud>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 23:01:33 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Khairul Anuar Romli <khairul.anuar.romli@...era.com>,
Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Mahesh Rao <mahesh.rao@...era.com>,
Ho Yin <adrian.ho.yin.ng@...era.com>,
Niravkumar L Rabara <nirav.rabara@...era.com>,
linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: fpga: stratix10: add support for
Agilex5
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 08:28:46PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/11/2025 20:07, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:11:42AM +0800, Khairul Anuar Romli wrote:
> >> Agilex5 introduces changes in how reserved memory is mapped and accessed
> >> compared to previous SoC generations. Agilex5 compatible allows stratix10-
> >> FPGA manager driver to handle these changes.
> >>
> >> Fallback is added for driver probe and init that rely on matching of table
> >> and DT node.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Khairul Anuar Romli <khairul.anuar.romli@...era.com>
> >> ---
> >> Changes in v4:
> >> - Remove redundant "items - enum" as suggested in v3.
> >> - Simplify compatible property to use contains instead of oneOf.
> >> - Validate fallback and non-fallback DT. Also validate binding with
> >> dt_binding_check.
> >
> > What are you doing?? You've been told several times exactly what to do
> > and yet you keep conjuring up completely random different things.
> > Using contains instead of the oneOf construct that was being done before
> > is *not* a simplification, it is functionally different.
> >
> > NAK. Go do what you were told to do.
>
> There is no single file with that syntax, so I really do not understand
> why completely different syntax is reasonable for the author :/
There are actually a handful of bindings that do it (14). Some are
probably wrong, others are the generic portions of snps etc IP schemas.
Run this if you wanna quickly see what's what:
rg --multiline "^properties:\n.*compatible:\n.*contains" --context=5
I'd say that about half of them should be enums or const.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists