Hi, On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 18:26, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 05:04:31PM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 20:12, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > In some configurations, the BAM DMA controller is set up by a remote > > > processor and the local processor can simply start making use of it > > > without setting up the BAM. This is already supported using the > > > "qcom,controlled-remotely" property. > > > > > > However, for some reason another possible configuration is that the > > > remote processor is responsible for powering up the BAM, but we are > > > still responsible for initializing it (e.g. resetting it etc). Add > > > a "qcom,powered-remotely" property to describe that configuration. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Changes since RFC: > > > - Rename qcom,remote-power-collapse -> qcom,powered-remotely > > > for consistency with "qcom,controlled-remotely" > > > > > > NOTE: This is *not* a compile-time requirement for the BAM-DMUX driver > > > so this could also go through the dmaengine tree. > > > > > > Also note that there is an ongoing effort to convert these bindings > > > to DT schema but sadly there were not any updates for a while. :/ > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20210519143700.27392-2-bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Seems you missed the latest series posted last week - [1]. Sorry I got > > a bit delayed posting it due to being caught up in other patches. > > > > Maybe you can rebase your patch on the same and use the YAML bindings > > for the qcom,bam_dma controller. > > > > [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20211013105541.68045-1-bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t > > > > Ah, you're right sorry! Seems like you sent it two days after I sent the > v2 of this patch. Thanks a lot for continuing work on this! :) > > Since I already sent v3 of this patch earlier, I think it is best if > I wait a bit first and see if Vinod has any comments or still wants to > take it for 5.16. Should be simple to rebase either of our patches on > the other one. Sure, let's wait for Vinod's comments. Regards, Bhupesh
