On 6.01.2023 18:55, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 05:50:33PM +0100, 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> >> --- >> v1 -> v2: >> - Rewrite the newly added description >> >> .../devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 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..4026788a4e40 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/qcom,rmtfs-mem.yaml >> @@ -31,6 +31,12 @@ properties: >> description: > >> vmid of the remote processor, to set up memory protection >> >> + qcom,assign-to-nav: >> + type: boolean >> + description: >> + Whether to also assign the region to a third (NAV) VM, as opposed to >> + the usual 2. > > For better or worse, the binding currently takes the vmid of the first > instance in qcom,vmid. Would it not be cleaner to turn qcom,vmid into an > array and pass the nav vmid as a second element in that array? I suppose I could do that.. Konrad > > Regards, > Bjorn > >> + >> required: >> - qcom,client-id >> >> -- >> 2.39.0 >>
