Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: Add documentation for qcom,platform-parts-info

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 9/1/2023 12:52 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 01/09/2023 08:02, Naman Jain wrote:
Add documentation to describe device tree bindings for QCOM's
platform-parts-info node. Firmware populates these nodes to pass the
information to kernel regarding the subset of hardware blocks
and features like Camera, Modem, Display present in a product.

This is to support that the same software image runs seamlessly on
different platforms where one or more HW blocks are not supported or
if some sub parts for a particular block are not supported.

Purpose of these definitions is to allow clients to know about this,
and thus, handle these cases gracefully.
Whether camera is or is not supported, is defined by presence of camera
node or by its status field.

Existing firmware (e.g. U-Boot) is also doing this - patching DTS when
needed.

I do not think introducing some parallel way makes any sense, so no,
that's not the way to do it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof


Thanks Krzysztof for reviewing the patch. I think for telling whether the Camera HW block is not supported / not present, firmware can either remove the device tree node, or change its status
to disabled, so that is fine.
With this patch, I was trying to address the use case, where Camera is supported but certain features of that particular Camera are not supported, due to dependent HW blocks not present, or due to product decision to not support it. We wanted to avoid the firmware to have this overhead of knowing what these individual bits mean and thus, disable few of the HW blocks that are supposed to be
disabled. And this is applicable for each of these HW blocks.

For example, we can know from 32 bits provided for modem, if 3G/4G/5G is supported or not on a platform. That is decided based on presence/absence of certain HW blocks, but it may or may not be as
simple as disabling a particular DT node.
Basically we wanted to defer it to the subsystem drivers, to do whatever they like with this
information on sub-parts that are available.

Will rephrase my commit message to make it clearer, but would like to hear your thoughts on this first.


Thanks,

Naman Jain






[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux