On 25 April 2016 at 20:49, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/25, Andy Gross wrote: >> This patch adds the device tree support for the Qualcomm SCM firmware. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.txt | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.txt >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..a679a87 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ >> +QCOM Secure Channel Manager (SCM) >> + >> +Qualcomm processors include an interface to communicate to the secure firmware. >> +This interface allows for clients to request different types of actions. These >> +can include CPU power up/down, HDCP requests, loading of firmware, and other >> +assorted actions. >> + >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible: must contain one of the following: >> + * "qcom,scm-apq8064" for APQ8064 >> + * "qcom,scm-apq8084" for APQ8084 >> + * "qcom,scm-msm8916" for MSM8916 >> + * "qcom,scm-msm8974" for MSM8974 > > Do we need to keep adding these into the driver for every SoC > that we support? My understanding is apq8064 can be the one that > requires one clk, and msm8974 can be the one that requires three. > The driver can just have those two compatibles for now, and we > can keep adding compatibles here for the different SoCs, but > really we don't care, that's just to save ourselves if something > pops up and needs a workaround. > > It will certainly look weird if it's firmware that's compatible > with qcom,scm-msm8974 but on an apq8084, so perhaps something > more generic like, qcom-scm-v1 and qcom,scm-v2 can be used as the > generic compatible in the driver: > > compatible = "qcom,scm-apq8064", "qcom,scm-v1"; > > vs. > > compatible = "qcom,scm-apq8084", "qcom,scm-v2"; > > ? > > I just want to avoid the constant SoC churn update here if we can. Right. We can certainly do it that way. Its just that the v1/v2 aren't the real versions. What if we did qcom,scm vs qcom,scm-apq8064? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
