On 3/13/2024 4:49 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > 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? Yes, DT-spec will be a good start. > > >> 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. I don't understand yet why we don't have any other choices but do the conditional checks? Maybe explaining with the example will help? Start w/ clocks? -- ---Trilok Soni
