Hi Nishanth, On 8/20/20 2:03 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 08:25-20200820, Suman Anna wrote: > [...] >>> I am just wondering if the carveouts and mbox linkage should be in the >>> common processor board? if that makes sense at all? I know we already >>> have other definitions.. Trying to see if we are making it harder to >>> understand the definition than that is necessary.. >> >> In general, I consider these as stuff that needs to be added to the board dts >> files. You will see that this is what I have followed on all the TI >> AM57xx/DRA7xx boards. For J721E, we have a weird organization as the memory >> node, typically a board property, is defined in the som dtsi file, so the >> reserved memory nodes are also added in the som dtsi file. The convention I >> followed in general is to have the reserved-memory and memory nodes together. >> >> If you think the mailbox nodes should be moved into the SoM dts file, I could do > > I think that might make more sense and less confusing. I'd rather > leave the processor board dts for more signal and interface hookup > related topics as it is done right now. if we do endup with too many > SoM duplication, then we should consider it's own dtsi > >> it as a follow-on cleanup series, but would wait for the ABI 3.0 changes to be >> merged first. > > Of course. We are expecting this to be part of rc2, please rebase and > post once the tag is out. next-20200820 has it already, if you want a > pre-look. > So, the ABI 3.0 changes are not part of -rc2, so, I cannot move the unrelated mailbox nodes/cleanup without conflicting with that series. Are you ok if I just move these nodes into the SoM dtsi file? regards Suman
