On 1/30/24 22:42, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:04:52PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
Add devicetree binding for CPUSS Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox
controller.
Hey Rob,
Thanks for taking time to review the series.
Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml | 51 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..2617e5555acb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mailbox/qcom,cpucp-mbox.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. CPUCP Mailbox Controller
+
+maintainers:
+ - Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
+description:
+ The CPUSS Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox controller enables communication
+ between AP and CPUCP by acting as a doorbell between them.
+
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ items:
+ - enum:
+ - qcom,x1e80100-cpucp-mbox
+ - const: qcom,cpucp-mbox
A generic fallback implies multiple devices use the same unchanged
block. That seems doubtful given you have not defined any others and
given Konrad's comments.
This mbox is expected to be used as is on a number of future SoCs,
that's the only reason I added the generic fallback. I can drop it
in the next re-spin if you want.
-Sibi
Rob
