Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <44af0610-63b1-20d2-2c8c-23e84edb519c@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 09:34:06 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] dt-bindings: memory: Describing LPDDR topology
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Jian-Jia Su <jjsu@google.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220831013359.1807905-1-jwerner@chromium.org>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220831013359.1807905-1-jwerner@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 31/08/2022 04:33, Julius Werner wrote:
> This patch series implements a proposal previously discussed on the
> mailing list under the topic `[RFC] Correct memory layout reporting for
> "jedec,lpddr2" and related bindings`. It adds a new jedec,lpddr-channel
> binding which should be used to group nodes of the existing jedec,lpddr
> bindings to describe their relative topology on the system and the
> amount of chips wired in parallel on each channel, as well as their
> different ranks. This also adds bindings for LPDDR4 and LPDDR5 memory
> types and deduplicates some common schema elements between different
> LPDDR types.
> 
> Julius Werner (4):
>   dt-bindings: memory: Factor out common properties of LPDDR bindings
>   dt-bindings: memory: Add numeric LPDDR compatible string variant
>   dt-bindings: memory: Add jedec,lpddr4 and jedec,lpddr5 bindings
>   dt-bindings: memory: Add jedec,lpddrX-channel binding

Thanks for the patches. Where are the users of these bindings? Although
bindings do not have requirement of providing user (as kernel API has),
but this is quite a rework so I want to see that it is applicable. That
it matches real use case and need. I can do it only with real DTS in the
kernel.

Best regards,
Krzysztof