On 7.04.2023 13:36, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:55:40PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> [...]
>> I don't really know what kind.. I can add something like:
>>
>> rpm {
>> compatible = "qcom,rpm", "simple-mfd";
>>
>> mpm: interrupt-controller {
>> ...
>> };
>>
>
> IMO we should indeed add something like this, because the current
> representation of the RPM below the top level /smd node is misleading.
> "SMD" is not a device, bus, component or anything like that. It is just
> the communication protocol. There should not be a top-level DT node for
> this.
>
> Instead there should be a dedicated device tree node for the RPM like in
> your example above, which will allow adding properties and subnodes to
> it as needed.
>
> For unrelated reasons I actually have some patches for this, that switch
> the /smd top-level node to a "remoteproc-like" node dedicated to the
> RPM, similar to how WCNSS/ADSP/Modem/etc are represented. I need this to
> add additional (optional) properties like "resets" and "iommus" for the
> RPM, but it would allow adding arbitrary subnodes as well:
>
> https://github.com/msm8916-mainline/linux/commit/35231ac28703805daa8220f1233847c7df34589e
>
> I could finish those up and post them if that would help...
Krzysztof, what do you think?
On a note, the bindings check is gone with dtschema-2023.4
Konrad
>
> Thanks,
> Stephan
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> index dcbc5972248b22..1c24b01bd268c8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> @@ -310,10 +310,10 @@
> };
> };
>
> - smd {
> - compatible = "qcom,smd";
> + rpm: remoteproc-rpm {
> + compatible = "qcom,msm8916-rpm-proc", "qcom,rpm-proc";
>
> - rpm {
> + smd-edge {
> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 168 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> qcom,ipc = <&apcs 8 0>;
> qcom,smd-edge = <15>;
>
>
