On 2021-03-24 03:36, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-03-13 20:16:39)
On Sat 13 Mar 15:46 CST 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-03-08 21:51:51)
> > Add miscellaneous nodes to boot the Wireless Processor Subsystem on
>
> Maybe add (WPSS) after the name so we know they're related.
>
> > SC7280 SoCs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=438217
> > Depends on ipcc dt node enablement from ^^
> >
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 143 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> > index 18637c369c1d..4f03c468df51 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> > @@ -244,12 +251,131 @@
> > reg = <0 0x80000000 0 0>;
> > };
> >
> > + tcsr_mutex: hwlock {
> > + compatible = "qcom,tcsr-mutex";
> > + syscon = <&tcsr_mutex_regs 0 0x1000>;
> > + #hwlock-cells = <1>;
> > + };
>
> Is this node in the right place? I think the node above it is 'memory'?
> In which case 'hwlock' comes before 'memory' alphabetically.
>
Thanks for spotting this, as it's no longer acceptable to have a
standalone "syscon" node I was asked to rewrite the binding for this a
few months ago. So the tcsr_mutex should now be represented with a reg
under /soc.
Oh nice, I wasn't aware.
> > + #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> > + };
> > + };
> > +
> > + smp2p-mpss {
> > + compatible = "qcom,smp2p";
> > + qcom,smem = <435>, <428>;
> > + interrupts-extended = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS
> > + IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P
> > + IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> > + mboxes = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS
> > + IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P>;
> > +
> > + qcom,local-pid = <0>;
> > + qcom,remote-pid = <1>;
> > +
> > + modem_smp2p_out: master-kernel {
> > + qcom,entry-name = "master-kernel";
> > + #qcom,smem-state-cells = <1>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + modem_smp2p_in: slave-kernel {
> > + qcom,entry-name = "slave-kernel";
>
> Do these names need to have 'master' and 'slave' in them? We're trying
> to avoid these terms. See Documentation/process/coding-style.rst Section
> 4 naming.
>
They need to match the naming in the firmware, but I would welcome a
future change to something in line with the coding style and simply
more
descriptive.
Sibi can this be done? I think it's still pretty early days for the
firmware so hopefully the terms can be replaced with something
different.
I'll discuss the ask with the modem fw team and
get back.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
