Hi Dmitry, On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 18:36, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 30/11/2022 12:45, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > Add the interconnect nodes inside SM6115 dtsi. > > > > Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > - Based on linux-next/master > > - Depends on the SM6115 dt-binding and driver patchset, which can be > > seen here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221130103841.2266464-1-bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi > > index e4a2440ce544..dad5ab3edf0e 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi > > @@ -485,6 +485,57 @@ usb_1_hsphy: phy@1613000 { > > status = "disabled"; > > }; > > > > + snoc: interconnect@1880000 { > > + compatible = "qcom,sm6115-snoc"; > > + reg = <0x01880000 0x60200>; > > + #interconnect-cells = <1>; > > Should we use 2 here as we do now for most of interconnect drivers? Right now, we are using the value present in upstream qcs404.dtsi which is the nearest in terms of similarity of the interconnect blocks present on this SoC. But let me try and make this change in v2. BTW the 'path tag' is optional, so I don't think that would be a mandatory change. Thanks, Bhupesh
