On 12/03/2024 17:25, Trilok Soni 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?
The whole issue around this new checks is that the driver/binding is not
designed to expect same set of resources from different TYPES of providers.
If the driver was designed to support opp's and power domains and make
the resources handle in a unified way then some/all of these changes
will naturally fit in.
SCMI or RPMI based firmware is not a QC specific. I also have allergic reaction
I agree this are not QC specific, am fine with generic dt-binding like
firmware-managed-resources or something on those lines if DT-maintainers
are happy with.
What is your suggestion?
when I see drivers modified w/ if (fw_managed) {..} but that is a discussion
I don't think we have a choice here, either we do this check at
compatible level or dt-property level or resource level in every drivers.
--srini
for some other day.
