From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 22:37:10 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v4 6/8] dt-bindings: Add support for Amlogic GXBB SCPI Interface In-Reply-To: References: <1475652814-30619-1-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <1475652814-30619-7-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <20161102222050.GA32189@e106835-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linus-amlogic.lists.infradead.org On 02/11/16 21:51, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:39:05AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote: >>>> Acked-by: Rob Herring >>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 8 +++++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>> index faa4b44..04bc171 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations. >>>> >>>> Required properties: >>>> >>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" >>>> +- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi" >>> >>> This doesn't seem right to document here. If anything you might want >>> to have a table of more-specific-compatibles for specific >>> implementations, but "arm,scpi" should still be the compatible of the >>> node (just not the most specific one). >>> >> >> I completely agree with you and I was pushing for a generic "arm,legacy-scpi" >> compatible until this binding was acked by Rob. > > Just because I ack something, that doesn't mean don't review or > comment on it further. > Sorry I didn't mean to say that. I was initially pushing for the generic binding and since it was reworked many times already, I didn't want to postpone any further just for sake of that. I completely understand that component maintainers have to review the bindings too. So clearly it was my mistake. >> >> Anyways, I will add the generic compatible and post the changes. >> >>> Also, documenting it here indiciates that non-amlogic implementations >>> can/should use that compatible, which is misleading. >>> >> >> Agreed, it's better to keep them out of this generic binding document. >> >>>> - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers >>>> All the channels reserved by remote SCP firmware for use by >>>> SCPI message protocol should be specified in any order >>>> @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ A small area of SRAM is reserved for SCPI communication between application >>>> processors and SCP. >>>> >>>> Required properties: >>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno >>>> +- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno, >>>> + or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sram" for Amlogic GXBB SoC. >>> >>> Maybe you'd be better of with a meson-specific document that refers to >>> these but with different compatible values. >>> >>> Come to think of it, the Juno-specific one maybe shouldn't be in >>> arm,scpi at all, since that adds confusion here. >>> >>> It's somewhat confusing that ARM is both a platform, architecture and >>> in some cases implementer of specific systems. :) >>> >> >> Sorry for that, I will move all juno specific references in the binding >> out of this document(except the examples, which I assume should be fine) >> >>>> The rest of the properties should follow the generic mmio-sram description >>>> found in ../../sram/sram.txt >>>> @@ -70,7 +71,8 @@ Each sub-node represents the reserved area for SCPI. >>>> Required sub-node properties: >>>> - reg : The base offset and size of the reserved area with the SRAM >>>> - compatible : should be "arm,juno-scp-shmem" for Non-secure SRAM based >>>> - shared memory on Juno platforms >>>> + shared memory on Juno platforms or >>>> + "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem" for Amlogic GXBB SoC. >>> >>> Same here. It won't scale if all vendors are expected to add an entry here. >>> >> >> I will rework the patches to address the concerns as I too did share same >> concern. > > Guess I was optimistic that *every* platform wouldn't be different in > some way. I should know better by now... :) -- Regards, Sudeep