On 14/12/2022 10:55, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 14.12.2022 09:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 13/12/2022 18:03, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> Some SoCs mandate that the RMTFS is also assigned to the NAV VM, while >>> others really don't want that. Since it has to be conditional, add a >>> bool property to toggle this behavior. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml >>> index 2998f1c8f0db..1d8c4621178a 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml >>> @@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ properties: >>> description: > >>> vmid of the remote processor, to set up memory protection >>> >>> + qcom,assign-to-nav: >>> + type: boolean >>> + description: > >> >> No need for '>' >> >>> + whether to also assign the region to the NAV VM >> >> Here and in property name you express desired Linux driver action, but >> it is better to express the property of the hardware. What is >> different/special in these SoCs or their configuration that additional >> assignment is needed? > Honestly, I have no clue.. probably there's something more complex > than was there before connected to GPS.. One thing could be number of VMs - if it is even something known. Best regards, Krzysztof
