Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
CC:     "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "f.fainelli@gmail.com" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "viresh.kumar@linaro.org" <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        "andre.przywara@arm.com" <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc transports
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc transports
Thread-Index: AQHV3O5LIqtUB1cLq0qKBDDFKN5B7qgPg0IAgAAK5QCAAAIrgIAAAERw
Date:   Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:00:37 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB44815F11C94E5F35AE7B0B21881C0@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1580994086-17850-1-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com>
 <1580994086-17850-2-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com>
 <7875e2533c4ba23b8ca0a2a296699497@kernel.org> <20200207104736.GB36345@bogus>
 <5a073c37e877d23977e440de52dba6e0@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <5a073c37e877d23977e440de52dba6e0@kernel.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b524a86d-155c-4daa-08e2-08d7abbcf674
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Feb 2020 11:00:37.1226
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: w5qW5qHlW18phbcVVts5a/txt23jBGFPTUTadBpm9+k0rIQoU0WfUy1HKdhj91lbs/lh7Ea0L2vIXXcSgzazGw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR04MB4946
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc transpor=
ts
>=20
> On 2020-02-07 10:47, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:08:36AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 2020-02-06 13:01, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote:
> >> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> >> >
> >> > SCMI could use SMC/HVC as tranports, so add into devicetree binding
> >> > doc.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 4 +++-
> >> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt
> >> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt
> >> > index f493d69e6194..03cff8b55a93 100644
> >> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt
> >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt
> >> > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Required properties:
> >> >
> >> >  The scmi node with the following properties shall be under the
> >> > /firmware/ node.
> >> >
> >> > -- compatible : shall be "arm,scmi"
> >> > +- compatible : shall be "arm,scmi" or "arm,scmi-smc"
> >> >  - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers. It
> >> > should contain
> >> >  	  exactly one or two mailboxes, one for transmitting messages("tx"=
)
> >> >  	  and another optional for receiving the notifications("rx") if
> >> > @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ The scmi node with the following properties shall
> >> > be under the /firmware/ node.
> >> >  	  protocol identifier for a given sub-node.
> >> >  - #size-cells : should be '0' as 'reg' property doesn't have any si=
ze
> >> >  	  associated with it.
> >> > +- arm,smc-id : SMC id required when using smc transports
> >> > +- arm,hvc-id : HVC id required when using hvc transports
> >> >
> >> >  Optional properties:
> >>
> >> Not directly related to DT: Why do we need to distinguish between SMC
> >> and HVC?
> >
> > IIUC you want just one property to get the function ID ? Does that
> > align with what you are saying ? I wanted to ask the same question and
> > I see no need for 2 different properties.
>=20
> Exactly. Using SMC or HVC should come from the context, and there is zero
> value in having different different IDs, depending on the conduit.
>=20
> We *really* want SMC and HVC to behave the same way. Any attempt to
> make them different should just be NAKed.

ok. Then just like psci node,
Add a "method" property for each protocol, and add "arm,func-id" to
indicate the ID.

How about this?

Thanks,
Peng.


>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
>          M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...