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: <2eace846-1feb-4299-4678-e1ff06179fdc@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 1 Jul 2023 12:51:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 01/13] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom: Add support for
 multipd model
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@quicinc.com>,
        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>
 <c312824f-1438-d5de-d139-aaeb63f3c566@quicinc.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <c312824f-1438-d5de-d139-aaeb63f3c566@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 30/06/2023 09:12, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 ?

Can you fix your reply style, so it is like on every mailing list? Some
weird indentation does no help to read it.

I was proposing to drop compatibles entirely. Making compatibles generic
is not solving any of my concerns.

I don't understand what do you want to achieve here and very limited
description of the hardware in the binding does not help.

> 
>> 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

What requirement? You did not describe anything. Binding describes
hardware, not your requirements.

Binding said nothing about devices.

> 	specific bindings. We will remove "PD-X" from soc dtsi and
> 	add it in board dts file.

Why? How is it related to the bindings? What does it solve? Instead of
doing some changes you should explain why.

> 
> 	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 ?
> 

Why?

Best regards,
Krzysztof