Hi Sudeep, > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc > transports > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:58:49AM +0800, peng.fan@xxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > SCMI could use SMC/HVC as tranports. Since there is no standardized > > id, we need to use vendor specific id. So add into devicetree binding > > doc. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > index f493d69e6194..dacc62dc248b 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ The scmi node with the following properties shall be > under the /firmware/ node. > > protocol identifier for a given sub-node. > > - #size-cells : should be '0' as 'reg' property doesn't have any size > > associated with it. > > +- smc-id : SMC id required when using smc or hvc transports > > IIUC, "arm,smc-id" is preferred more. ok. Fix in v3. > > Why did you drop "arm,scmi-smc" ? Per our discuss in v1 patchset, mailbox/smc-id could be used to differentiate mailbox and smc transports. https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/11/226 So I still use "arm,scmi" for smc tranports. Thanks, Peng. > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep
