Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753393AbcJ2SjJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2016 14:39:09 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f193.google.com ([209.85.220.193]:32901 "EHLO mail-qk0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750806AbcJ2SjH (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2016 14:39:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [173.13.129.225] In-Reply-To: <1475652814-30619-7-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> References: <1475652814-30619-1-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <1475652814-30619-7-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> From: Olof Johansson Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 11:39:05 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] dt-bindings: Add support for Amlogic GXBB SCPI Interface To: Neil Armstrong Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Sudeep Holla , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, Kevin Hilman , =?UTF-8?Q?Heiko_St=C3=BCbner?= , wxt@rock-chips.com, frank.wang@rock-chips.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2698 Lines: 63 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). 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