On 8/25/20 5:42 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 17:00-20200824, Suman Anna wrote: >> 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? > > Lets introduce things properly: First cleanup rather creating a > kludgy intermediate state (half of r5 mbox nodes in proc, half of c6x > node in SoM etc). OK, posted a v2 [1] with the cleanup first. It does create a dependency on the pending ABI 3.0 PR. regards Suman [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11736095/
