| Message ID | 1475652814-30619-7-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote: > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> > --- > 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). Also, documenting it here indiciates that non-amlogic implementations can/should use that compatible, which is misleading. > - 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. :) > 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. -Olof
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 <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote: > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> > > --- > > 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. 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. Hi Neil, You may need to rework the DTS files based on that, please be aware of that and make the necessary changes. -- Regards, Sudeep
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> 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 <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote: >> > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> >> > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> >> > --- >> > 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. > > 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... Rob
On 02/11/16 21:51, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> 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 <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote: >>>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> >>>> --- >>>> 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... :)
On 11/02/2016 11:20 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:39:05AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > > I will rework the patches to address the concerns as I too did share same > concern. > > > Hi Neil, > > You may need to rework the DTS files based on that, please be aware of > that and make the necessary changes. Hi, I will post the necessary changes since kevin already applied the previous patches. Thanks, Neil > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep >
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" - 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. 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. Sensor bindings for the sensors based on SCPI Message Protocol --------------------------------------------------------------