Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:40:27 +0000 | From | Cristian Marussi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict protocol child node properties |
| |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:11:13PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:43:48PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > so now that the catch-all protocol@ patternProperty is gone in favour > > of the 'protocol-node' definition and $refs, does that mean that any > > current and future SCMI officially published protocol <N> has to be > > added to the above explicit protocol list, even though it does not > > have any special additional required property beside reg ? > > (like protocol@18 above...) > > > > If there are no consumers, should we just not add and deal with it > entirely within the kernel. I know we rely today on presence of node > before we initialise, but hey we have exception for system power protocol > for other reasons, why not add this one too. > > In short we shouldn't have to add a node if there are no consumers. It > was one of the topic of discussion initially when SCMI binding was added > and they exist only for the consumers otherwise we don't need it as > everything is discoverable from the interface. >
I'm fine with that, just wanted to understand/clarify the rule here.
Thanks, Cristian
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |