On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:38:18PM -0500, Jim Quinlan wrote: > This change allows the SCMI "platform" to use the smc/hvc transport and to Incorrect statement above, it is OSPM using SMC/HVC as transport and not the "platform" which refers to entity/firmware implementing SCMI services to OSPM. Also this change is not adding SMC/HVC, just the interrupt support. > optionally indicate the completion of an SCMI message with an interrupt. > This is in contrast to the nominal case where the return of the SMC call > indicates message completion. > > Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > index 55deb68230eb..d3b0c9f387fe 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > @@ -31,6 +31,14 @@ Optional properties: > > - mbox-names: shall be "tx" or "rx" depending on mboxes entries. > > +- interrupts : when using smc or hvc transports, this optional > + property indicates that msg completion by the platform is indicated s/msg/message/ > + by an interrupt rather than by the return of the smc call. This > + should not be used except when the platform requires such behavior. > + > +- interrupt-names : the name must be "msg-serviced". Is this mandatory if "interrupts" is present ? > + > + Extra blank line ? -- Regards, Sudeep
