On 3/13/2024 2:19 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
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.
Hi Ulf,
Srini mentioned that the option of "every driver checking for board
level compatible/board-id" was once tried before and was rejected in
upstream. So I didn't want to embark upon something that was already
rejected once. Srini can provide pointers on that.
Kind regards
Uffe
