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: <c21737b3-cb72-6a4e-0ab2-b8231a7119fe@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 15:35:02 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: qcom-scm: Add optional
 interrupt
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        <andersson@kernel.org>
CC:     <agross@kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>, <robimarko@gmail.com>,
        <quic_gurus@quicinc.com>, <quic_rjendra@quicinc.com>
References: <20221123204615.25358-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
 <20221123204615.25358-2-quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
 <3cda9005-d7a5-56f0-d1d2-fd6c1cb36fc3@linaro.org>
 <7b6ffbb4-80fb-610a-c839-e3bf1668d4ed@quicinc.com>
 <61f1a1e5-bd2c-4a22-66f7-1935154b35ad@linaro.org>
From:   Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <61f1a1e5-bd2c-4a22-66f7-1935154b35ad@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/28/22 14:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/11/2022 06:57, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> Which devices have interrupts?
>>>
>>> We talked about it here:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/2464d90f-64e9-5e3c-404b-10394c3bc302@quicinc.com/
>>> and here:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c20edd0d-7613-5683-60e7-54317cac6e0b@linaro.org/
>>>
>>> But I still don't get which devices support it and which do not.
>>
>> lol, I thought we reached a consensus earlier because of the "ok" and
>> R-b. Like I explained earlier the bootloader would be adding interrupt
>> on the fly, wouldn't such cases cause binding check failure if we list
>> all the devices supporting it?
> 
> What type of failure? I don't get. Is this interrupt valid for SM8250?
> SDM845? MSM8996? and so on? Now you make it valid.

ok if we mark the interrupt as required for SM8450 and not specify the
interrupt in the board file (since the bootloader will be adding it on
the fly), dtbs_check will throw 'interrupts' is a required property for
the board file. This was the failure I was talking about.

> 
>> Also some of the SM8450 devices in the
>> wild would be running firmware not having the feature but I guess
>> eventually most of the them will end up supporting the feature in the
>> end.
> 
> That's not what I meant. Your patch describes the case for one variant
> but you are affecting all of them.

Not really, the driver treats interrupts as optional. If the interrupt
isn't present we assume that the feature isn't supported. If the
bootloader adds the property during boot then we assume the fw has
waitqueue support.

- Sibi

> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>