> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: introduce > property mbox-rx-timeout-ms > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 11:48:31PM +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 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. > > > > Still not taken in transport rework V1, but not forgotten :D No problem. just posted out v3. Only binding change to add minimum, no more changes. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240709140957.3171255-1-peng.fan@xxxxxxxxxxx/#t Regards, Peng. > > Thanks, > Cristian
