Re: DT Query on "New Compatible vs New Property"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 13/03/2024 09:19, 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.

Are we going to do this with each driver on every new board that will be added?



thanks,
Srini


Kind regards
Uffe




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux