Hi Rob, On 08/03/2018 12:02 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:13 AM Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> This binding is intended to represent the interconnect hardware present >> in some of the modern SoCs. Currently it consists only of a binding for >> the interconnect hardware devices (provider). > > If you want the bindings reviewed, then you need to send them to the > DT list. CC'ing me is pointless, I get CC'ed too many things to read. Ops, ok! > The consumer and producer binding should be a single patch. One is not > useful without the other. The reason for splitting them is that they can be reviewed separately. Also we can rely on platform data instead of using DT and the consumer binding. However will do as you suggest. > There is also a patch series from Maxime Ripard that's addressing the > same general area. See "dt-bindings: Add a dma-parent property". We > don't need multiple ways to address describing the device to memory > paths, so you all had better work out a common solution. Looks like this fits exactly into the interconnect API concept. I see MBUS as interconnect provider and display/camera as consumers, that report their bandwidth needs. I am also planning to add support for priority. Thanks, Georgi -- 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
