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: <c312824f-1438-d5de-d139-aaeb63f3c566@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 12:42:32 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 01/13] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom: Add support for
 multipd model
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
CC:     <agross@kernel.org>, <andersson@kernel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>, <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        <mturquette@baylibre.com>, <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>, <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>,
        <loic.poulain@linaro.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        <quic_srichara@quicinc.com>, <quic_sjaganat@quicinc.com>,
        <quic_kathirav@quicinc.com>, <quic_anusha@quicinc.com>,
        <quic_poovendh@quicinc.com>, <quic_varada@quicinc.com>,
        <quic_devipriy@quicinc.com>
References: <20230521222852.5740-1-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com>
 <20230521222852.5740-2-quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com>
 <7940c743-815f-f864-d015-43d7e916ecfa@linaro.org>
 <a1456f62-d0a7-d5ec-b379-db1b6035c89c@quicinc.com>
 <d187eafb-4a80-9479-d063-3a01b47d8efa@linaro.org>
 <feb0d11d-0930-d0b8-ab6e-cf477bbf114b@quicinc.com>
 <87edmoitu3.fsf@kernel.org>
 <0555c089-9d0d-7d19-9646-f0f9b8630d12@quicinc.com>
 <5f9cc367-eaa5-4c19-4e5e-7052b0259ccf@linaro.org>
 <04f5e3cb-d2f5-747c-1fd0-4b61d845e2c5@quicinc.com>
 <36900050-2ffd-b5dd-f768-986624a83c70@linaro.org>
 <59d92b83-f759-50de-9b8b-834c3c0bec5a@quicinc.com>
 <8dbd8330-de83-b663-8105-e33c16687a88@linaro.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <8dbd8330-de83-b663-8105-e33c16687a88@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 6/24/2023 12:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/06/2023 13:39, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote:
>>>> on number of wcss radios connected on that board and only one instance
>>>> of 'qcom,ipq5018-q6-mpd'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand why the user protection domains need a specific
>>> compatible. Why do they need compatible at all?
>>>
>>> Not mentioning that amount of your domains on Q6 is actually fixed per
>>> SoC and probably should not be in DT at all.
>>>
>>     root domain is fixed per soc (One Q6 DSP, one per soc)
>>     user domain(s) are variable (based on number of wcss radios attached)
>>
>>     The sequence to initialize, bring up, tear down the Q6 and wcss radios
>>     are completely different. So in order to differentiate them, we will
>>     need different compatibles. So this is a new rproc driver/architecture
>>     which has a parent/child topology (Q6 DSP -> Master/parent controls
>>     the WCSS (child)).
> 
> I understand you need different properties, but I don't see yet the
> benefit of creating here artificial compatibles. Look at your ipq9574
> DTSI change - it does not use even ipq9574 compatibles for 66% of its
> children.
> 
> Maybe you should have there just property describing type of device or
> bringup?
> 

	Yeah i got your point. Indeed the requirement here is to
	have device specific compatibles, so will have just two
	compatible one for Q6-MPD and another for WCSS-MPD device's


	"qcom,q6-mpd" --> For Q6-MPD device
	"qcom,wcss-mpd" --> For WCSS-MPD device

	Is this approach fine ?

> Given SoC cannot come with different amount of children (PD) and
> different amount of radios. You even fix the firmware name, so
> boards/customers cannot use anything else. It's fixed and the only
> variable element here is disabling some of the blocks per board, if they
> do not have physical interface (e.g. radio).
> 
> You even hard-code the number of PD by using "pd-[123]", without unit
> address, so you do not expect it will grow.
> 
> Unless you want to say that these are devices? But your binding does not
> really suggest it...
> 
> 
> 	Yes, as i mentioned above the requirement is to have device
	specific bindings. We will remove "PD-X" from soc dtsi and
	add it in board dts file.

	So soc dts would have "Q6-MPD" master node & board dts have
	"WCSS-MPD" child nodes based on number of radio's connected
	on board.

	Is this fine ?

Thanks & Regards,
Manikanta.