On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Just because I ack something, that doesn't mean don't review or comment on it further. > > 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. Guess I was optimistic that *every* platform wouldn't be different in some way. I should know better by now... Rob -- 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
