On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:49 PM Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue 28 Sep 12:34 CDT 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 5:22 AM Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:45:44PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > > In the olden days the Qualcomm shared memory (SMEM) region consisted of
> > > > multiple chunks of memory, so SMEM was described as a standalone node
> > > > with references to its various memory regions.
> > > >
> > > > But practically all modern Qualcomm platforms has a single reserved memory
> > > > region used for SMEM. So rather than having to use two nodes to describe
> > > > the one SMEM region, update the binding to allow the reserved-memory
> > > > region alone to describe SMEM.
> > > >
> > > > The olden format is preserved as valid, as this is widely used already.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > .../bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smem.yaml | 34 ++++++++++++++++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smem.yaml
> > > > index f7e17713b3d8..4149cf2b66be 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smem.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,smem.yaml
> > > > [...]
> > > > @@ -43,6 +55,20 @@ examples:
> > > > #size-cells = <1>;
> > > > ranges;
> > > >
> > > > + smem@fa00000 {
> > >
> > > I think this is a good opportunity to make a decision which node name
> > > should be used here. :)
> >
> > reserved-memory node names are kind of a mess, so I haven't tried for
> > any standard... It needs to be solved globally.
> >
>
> I'd be happy to paint the shed any color you decide :)
I didn't ask for it to be painted. Unless it is for everyone, I don't
care unless there's some clear pattern used already.
> That said, the binding itself doesn't mandate any node name, so it's
> just the example here that would be "wrong" - and just as wrong as it
> currently is.
The example is right. The dts is wrong.
Perhaps we need a schema for 'any node name that doesn't match already
defined ones'.
> > > You use smem@ here but mentioned before that you think using the generic
> > > memory@ would be better [1]. And you use memory@ in PATCH 3/3:
> > >
> > > - smem_mem: memory@86000000 {
> > > + memory@86000000 {
> > > + compatible = "qcom,smem";
> > > reg = <0x0 0x86000000 0 0x200000>;
> > > no-map;
> > > + hwlocks = <&tcsr_mutex 3>;
> > > };
> > >
> > > However, if you would use memory@ as example in this DT schema,
> > > Rob's bot would complain with the same error that I mentioned earlier [2]:
> > >
> > > soc/qcom/qcom,smem.example.dt.yaml: memory@fa00000: 'device_type' is a required property
> > > From schema: dtschema/schemas/memory.yaml
> > >
> > > We should either fix the error when using memory@ or start using some
> > > different node name (Stephen Boyd suggested shared-memory@ for example).
> > > Otherwise we'll just keep introducing more and more dtbs_check errors
> > > for the Qualcomm device trees.
> >
> > A different node name. A node name should only have 1 meaning and
> > 'memory' is already defined.
> >
> > The main issue here is what to name nodes with only a size and no address.
> >
>
> This particular node has both address and size (as does all of the other
> reserved-memory regions we use upstream today)...
I'm not talking about *just* QCom. If we define something here, it's
got to cover everyone.
In summary, you can't use 'memory' or anything other established,
standard node name.
Rob
