On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:21:51PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> The qcom,ipc-N properties are essentially providing a reference to a
> mailbox, so allow using the mboxes property to do the same in a more
> structured way.
Can we mark qcom,ipc-N as deprecated then?
> Since multiple SMSM hosts are supported, we need to be able to provide
> the correct mailbox for each host. The old qcom,ipc-N properties map to
> the mboxes property by index, starting at 0 since that's a valid SMSM
> host also.
>
> The new example shows how an smsm node with just qcom,ipc-3 should be
> specified with the mboxes property.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <[email protected]>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml | 48 ++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml
> index db67cf043256..b12589171169 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml
> @@ -33,6 +33,13 @@ properties:
> specifier of the column in the subscription matrix representing the local
> processor.
>
> + mboxes:
> + minItems: 1
> + maxItems: 5
Need to define what each entry is.
> + description:
> + Reference to the mailbox representing the outgoing doorbell in APCS for
> + this client.
> +
> '#size-cells':
> const: 0
>
> @@ -98,15 +105,18 @@ required:
> - '#address-cells'
> - '#size-cells'
>
> -anyOf:
> +oneOf:
> - required:
> - - qcom,ipc-1
> - - required:
> - - qcom,ipc-2
> - - required:
> - - qcom,ipc-3
> - - required:
> - - qcom,ipc-4
> + - mboxes
> + - anyOf:
> + - required:
> + - qcom,ipc-1
> + - required:
> + - qcom,ipc-2
> + - required:
> + - qcom,ipc-3
> + - required:
> + - qcom,ipc-4
>
> additionalProperties: false
>
> @@ -136,3 +146,25 @@ examples:
> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> };
> };
> + # Example using mboxes property
> + - |
> + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> +
> + shared-memory {
> + compatible = "qcom,smsm";
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + mboxes = <0>, <0>, <0>, <&apcs 19>;
> +
> + apps@0 {
> + reg = <0>;
> + #qcom,smem-state-cells = <1>;
> + };
> +
> + wcnss@7 {
> + reg = <7>;
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 144 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> + interrupt-controller;
> + #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> + };
> + };
>
> --
> 2.44.0
>
On Donnerstag, 25. April 2024 18:17:15 MESZ Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:21:51PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > The qcom,ipc-N properties are essentially providing a reference to a
> > mailbox, so allow using the mboxes property to do the same in a more
> > structured way.
>
> Can we mark qcom,ipc-N as deprecated then?
Yes, that should be ok. Will also send a similar change to the other bindings
that support both qcom,ipc and mboxes.
>
> > Since multiple SMSM hosts are supported, we need to be able to provide
> > the correct mailbox for each host. The old qcom,ipc-N properties map to
> > the mboxes property by index, starting at 0 since that's a valid SMSM
> > host also.
> >
> > The new example shows how an smsm node with just qcom,ipc-3 should be
> > specified with the mboxes property.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml | 48 ++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml
> > index db67cf043256..b12589171169 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smsm.yaml
> > @@ -33,6 +33,13 @@ properties:
> > specifier of the column in the subscription matrix representing the local
> > processor.
> >
> > + mboxes:
> > + minItems: 1
> > + maxItems: 5
>
> Need to define what each entry is.
The entry is (description from qcom,ipc-N)
"the outgoing ipc bit used for signaling the N:th remote processor."
So you want me to add 5 times e.g.
- the IPC mailbox used for signaling the 0th remote processor
- the IPC mailbox used for signaling the 1st remote processor
etc? I don't really have any extra knowledge on smsm to be able to write
something better there..
Also what are your thoughts on this binding vs the alternative I wrote
in the cover letter? I'm not really happy about how the properties are
represented.
Regards
Luca
>
> > + description:
> > + Reference to the mailbox representing the outgoing doorbell in APCS for
> > + this client.
> > +
> > '#size-cells':
> > const: 0
> >
> > @@ -98,15 +105,18 @@ required:
> > - '#address-cells'
> > - '#size-cells'
> >
> > -anyOf:
> > +oneOf:
> > - required:
> > - - qcom,ipc-1
> > - - required:
> > - - qcom,ipc-2
> > - - required:
> > - - qcom,ipc-3
> > - - required:
> > - - qcom,ipc-4
> > + - mboxes
> > + - anyOf:
> > + - required:
> > + - qcom,ipc-1
> > + - required:
> > + - qcom,ipc-2
> > + - required:
> > + - qcom,ipc-3
> > + - required:
> > + - qcom,ipc-4
> >
> > additionalProperties: false
> >
> > @@ -136,3 +146,25 @@ examples:
> > #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> > };
> > };
> > + # Example using mboxes property
> > + - |
> > + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> > +
> > + shared-memory {
> > + compatible = "qcom,smsm";
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > + mboxes = <0>, <0>, <0>, <&apcs 19>;
> > +
> > + apps@0 {
> > + reg = <0>;
> > + #qcom,smem-state-cells = <1>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + wcnss@7 {
> > + reg = <7>;
> > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 144 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> > + interrupt-controller;
> > + #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> > + };
> > + };
> >
>