On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:39:05AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 8 +++++--- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt > > index faa4b44..04bc171 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt > > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations. > > > > Required properties: > > > > -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" > > +- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi" > > This doesn't seem right to document here. If anything you might want > to have a table of more-specific-compatibles for specific > implementations, but "arm,scpi" should still be the compatible of the > node (just not the most specific one). > I completely agree with you and I was pushing for a generic "arm,legacy-scpi" compatible until this binding was acked by Rob. Anyways, I will add the generic compatible and post the changes. > Also, documenting it here indiciates that non-amlogic implementations > can/should use that compatible, which is misleading. > Agreed, it's better to keep them out of this generic binding document. > > - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers > > All the channels reserved by remote SCP firmware for use by > > SCPI message protocol should be specified in any order > > @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ A small area of SRAM is reserved for SCPI communication between application > > processors and SCP. > > > > Required properties: > > -- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno > > +- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno, > > + or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sram" for Amlogic GXBB SoC. > > Maybe you'd be better of with a meson-specific document that refers to > these but with different compatible values. > > Come to think of it, the Juno-specific one maybe shouldn't be in > arm,scpi at all, since that adds confusion here. > > It's somewhat confusing that ARM is both a platform, architecture and > in some cases implementer of specific systems. :) > Sorry for that, I will move all juno specific references in the binding out of this document(except the examples, which I assume should be fine) > > The rest of the properties should follow the generic mmio-sram description > > found in ../../sram/sram.txt > > @@ -70,7 +71,8 @@ Each sub-node represents the reserved area for SCPI. > > Required sub-node properties: > > - reg : The base offset and size of the reserved area with the SRAM > > - compatible : should be "arm,juno-scp-shmem" for Non-secure SRAM based > > - shared memory on Juno platforms > > + shared memory on Juno platforms or > > + "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem" for Amlogic GXBB SoC. > > Same here. It won't scale if all vendors are expected to add an entry here. > I will rework the patches to address the concerns as I too did share same concern. Hi Neil, You may need to rework the DTS files based on that, please be aware of that and make the necessary changes. -- Regards, Sudeep -- 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
