On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > because ipc is actually a register inside the Krait complex's global > clock control/distribution hardware block (it's located at 0x2011000). > From what I can tell, this is the only non-clock/power register inside > there. I plan to send out a driver for this hardware block so that I can > switch the L2 aux source mux over to PLL8 instead of PXO (done with a > single register write to 0x2011028) and this mapping/use here is going > to conflict with that unless I only map the single register like is done > here. > > I wonder if we'd be better off making this region a separate node and > having some phandle to it here in the RPM node? That way we have a > driver that provides a clock and some IPC handle the RPM driver can get. > The SMD driver also uses the same register to kick other processors so > having some generic IPC handle may be useful there too. Thanks Stephen, I never connected the dots here but now that I found the right pieces of documentation I can only agree with you. This would better be some sort of reverse interrupt chip. Another such use case would be the smsm and smp2p, which in the codeaurora tree are modelled with a custom "state change" api and as gpios respectively. Both of these seems like they should better just be modelled as incoming virtual interrupts and then some sort of outgoing "interrupts" or "signals". Maybe I'm over optimistic regarding the reusability here, but I definitely agree with you that having a "ipc = <&apcs 0>;" does look like a better solution. Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
