On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 18:25, Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/12/2024 10:21 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > > >> Basically, I would prefer better than "qcom, fw-managed" since this is not > >> a qcom specific problem. > > > > > > We already have something like this in mainline where the BAM DMA controller is remotely powered. > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml?h=v6.8 > > > > As you can see it is already fragmented. Why we need to create one more approach > which is not scalable and specific to SOC vendor? > > SCMI or RPMI based firmware is not a QC specific. I also have allergic reaction > when I see drivers modified w/ if (fw_managed) {..} but that is a discussion > for some other day. > > For the record, I fully agree with Trilok here. More importantly, why is the other suggested approach(es) a problem? I don't get it. Kind regards Uffe
