> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: introduce > property mbox-rx-timeout-ms > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 12:33:09PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: > > > introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 10:39:53AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: > > > > > introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 11:17:14AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) > wrote: > > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > System Controller Management Interface(SCMI) firmwares > might > > > > > have > > > > > > different designs by SCMI firmware developers. So the > maximum > > > > > receive > > > > > > channel timeout value might also varies in the various designs. > > > > > > > > > > > > So introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms to let each > platform > > > > > > could set its own timeout value in device tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > V2: > > > > > > Drop defaults, update description. > > > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > | 6 > > > > > ++++++ > > > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > > index ebf384e76df1..dcac0b36c76f 100644 > > > > > > --- > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > > +++ > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > > @@ -121,6 +121,12 @@ properties: > > > > > > atomic mode of operation, even if requested. > > > > > > default: 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > + max-rx-timeout-ms: > > > > > > + description: > > > > > > + An optional time value, expressed in milliseconds, > > > > > > + representing > > > > > the > > > > > > + mailbox maximum timeout value for receive channel. The > > > > > > + value > > > > > should > > > > > > + be a non-zero value if set. > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, you had the min and max constraint in the earlier response. > > > > > You need to have rushed and posted another version before I > > > > > could respond with my preference. > > > > > > > > > > So there is no rush, these are v6.12 material. Take time for > > > > > respining and give some time for the review. > > > > > > > > Sure. I just not sure what the maximum should be set, so I drop > > > > the minimum and maximum from my previous email. > > > > > > > > > > Worst case we can just have min constraint to indicate it must be > > > non- zero value as you have mentioned above and drop that > statement > > > as it becomes explicit with the constraint. > > > > I'll use below in v3: > > max-rx-timeout-ms: > > description: > > An optional time value, expressed in milliseconds, representing > the > > mailbox maximum timeout value for receive channel. The value > should > > be a non-zero value if set. > > minimum: 1 > > > > Put the binding away, when you have time, please check whether the > > driver changes are good or not. > > BTW, since our Android team is waiting for this patchset got R-b or > > A-b, then the patches could be accepted by Google common kernel, > we > > could support GKI in our release which is soon in near days. So I am > > being pushed :) > > Hi Peng, > > once the bindings are accepted I wanted to fold also this series of yours > in my transport rework series. No problem, feel free to take it into your series, I will post out V3 later(wait if Sudeep is ok with I add minimum 1 or not), but v3 2/2 should be same as v2 2/2. Thanks, Peng. > > Thanks, > Cristian
