Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-06-02 19:44:40)
> On Wed 02 Jun 19:26 CDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-05-31 10:57:03)
> > > On Wed 26 May 18:30 CDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >
> > > > Quoting Maulik Shah (2021-05-21 04:26:09)
> > > > > @@ -3223,6 +3223,11 @@
> > > > > #power-domain-cells = <1>;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > + rpmh-sleep-stats@c3f0000 {
> > > > > + compatible = "qcom,rpmh-sleep-stats";
> > > > > + reg = <0 0x0c3f0000 0 0x400>;
> > > > > + };
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Does this need to be in DT? Can the sc7180-aoss-qmp driver use the
> > > > aux-bus and stick the sleep stats device on there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The AOSS memory space has N chunks of "message ram", one is used for the
> > > QMP protocol (presumably the APSS specific one), a different one is used
> > > for the sleep stats.
> > >
> > > I presume we could have come up with a binding for the entire AOSS/AOP
> > > and then describe (either implicit or explicitly) the QMP and
> > > debug-stats under that.
> > >
> > > But we'd also have to come up with the same container-device for the RPM
> > > case.
> >
> > Because the rpm node doesn't include this region of memory today? I
> > still fail to see why we're changing the existing binding and adding a
> > DT node for this new region that is basically a debug feature.
>
> We're not changing the binding, the memory region for the "AOSS QMP"
> thing was never larger than 0x400.
>
> 0x100000 is the size of all the AOSS "msg_ram" regions. We don't have
> this whole thing described in a binding and we don't have an
> implementation for the whole thing.
>
> If we're going for that we'd need to extend the binding to indicate
> which of the msg_ram regions are used for APSS QMP and for debug stats
> on particular platform (either by compatible, explicit properties or as
> some subnodes).
Fair enough. At the least, can we change the name of the node then to
'sram' or 'ram'? The 'rpmh-sleep-stats' node name is nonsense.
>
>
> That said, as I looked into my other objection, for the RPM
> (non-hardened) case it seems that we're actually describing the RPM
> region. So there it would make sense to describe it as such in DT - but
> we don't have any other code (that I'm aware of) that would implement
> the "qcom,<platform>-rpm".
>
I only half parsed this part. Are you saying that because we don't have
a driver for qcom,<platform>-rpm we shouldn't keep it all within the rpm
node?
