On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 01:03:57AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 27.01.2020 00:56, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: > [snip] > > Thinking a bit more about how to define the ICC, I'm now leaning to a > > variant like this: > > > > interconnects = > > <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMP &emc TEGRA_ICC_EMEM>, > > > <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMPR>, > > <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMPW>, > > <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMPDMAR>, > > <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMPDMAW>; > > I forgot that each ICC path should have SRC and DST, but you got the idea. > > This should be a more correct variant: > > <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMPR &mc TEGRA_ICC_MC>, > <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMPW &mc TEGRA_ICC_MC>, > <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMPDMAR &mc TEGRA_ICC_MC>, > <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMPDMAW &mc TEGRA_ICC_MC>; This seems wrong again, because now we need to make up this TEGRA_ICC_MC ID that doesn't exist anywhere in the hardware. So we're no longer providing a hardware description, but instead are building hints for a use by a Linux-specific framework into the DT. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
