On 9/6/23 1:20 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 5/9/23 23:48, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> >
> > On 9/4/23 2:50 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 29/8/23 20:19, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> >>> Use new dt bindings to get TCM address and size
> >>> information. Also make sure that driver stays
> >>> compatible with previous device-tree bindings.
> >>> So, if TCM information isn't available in device-tree
> >>> for zynqmp platform, hard-coded address of TCM will
> >>> be used.
> >>>
> >>> New platforms that are compatible with this
> >>> driver must add TCM support in device-tree as per new
> >>> bindings.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 279 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>> 1 file changed, 221 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>
> >>> /**
> >>> @@ -75,11 +79,17 @@ struct mbox_info {
> >>> * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will be removed once TCM bindings are
> >>> * accepted for system-dt specifications and upstreamed in linux kernel
> >>
> >> Just curious, for how long this fall back code has to be maintained?
> >> (When/how will we know we can remove it?)
> >
> >
> > I believe we should never remove it. It's important that driver works with old bindings as well.
>
> Do you mind posting a followup patch updating the comment,
> to clarify?
Sure I will post the follow up patch with comments updated.
I will wait for reviews from Mathieu on driver's patch then will address all the comments in v5.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil.
