On Tue 30 Sep 09:02 PDT 2014, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson <Bjorn.Andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed 24 Sep 09:39 PDT 2014, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > >> > >> On Sep 22, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Bjorn Andersson <Bjorn.Andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > > [..] > > > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.txt > > > > [..] > > > >>> +- qcom,ipc: > >>> + Usage: required > >>> + Value type: <prop-encoded-array> > >>> + > >>> + Definition: three entries specifying the outgoing ipc bit used for > >>> + signaling the RPM: > >>> + - phandle to a syscon node representing the apcs registers > >>> + - u32 representing offset to the register within the syscon > >>> + - u32 representing the ipc bit within the register > >>> + > >> > >> Does this really ever differ for the SoCs, and even if it does why do we need > >> to encode it in DT. Can’t we determine it via the compatible setting? > >> > > > > The two offsets could be hard coded, especially based on the compatible. > > > > But I don't know if it's worth respinning this just to get those two number out > > of here. Also this is now "symmetric" with the smd use cases, where it > > shouldn't be hard coded. > > I do think its worth respinning until the DT is agreed to as we shouldn’t > be changing the binding. > Correct, if there's valid reason for it. > I’m not sure how being ‘symmetric’ with the smd use case maters if > we are treating this RPM support vs RPM-SMD as two different things. > Not rpm-smd but smd. Which is also used on family a and uses the same kpss-gcc (or apcs) node as rpm for outgoing ipc on those platforms. 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
