On 2021-03-23 09:08, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-03-08 21:58:21)On 2021-02-27 19:26, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > On 2021-02-27 00:16, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2021-02-25 23:51:00) >>> On 2021-02-26 01:11, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> > Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2021-02-25 01:30:24) >>> >> Add a DT node for the AOSS QMP on SC7280 SoC. >>> >> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> --- >>> >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>> >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >>> >> >>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi >>> >> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi >>> >> index 65c1e0f2fb56..cbd567ccc04e 100644 >>> >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi >>> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi >>> >> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ >>> >> #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmh.h> >>> >> #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h> >>> >> #include <dt-bindings/mailbox/qcom-ipcc.h> >>> >> +#include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-aoss-qmp.h> >>> >> #include <dt-bindings/soc/qcom,rpmh-rsc.h> >>> >> >>> >> / { >>> >> @@ -368,6 +369,19 @@ pdc: interrupt-controller@b220000 { >>> >> interrupt-controller; >>> >> }; >>> >> >>> >> + aoss_qmp: qmp@c300000 { >>> > >>> > power-domain-controller@c300000? power-controller@c300000? >>> > >>> >>> Its an AOSS message RAM and all other SM* SoCs have as qmp@ >>> and the dt binding as well, I see only SM8150 with power-controller, >>> that should probably be fixed? >> >> Node name should be generic while still being meaningful. Nobody knows >> what qmp is, but power-controller makes sense. Can you fix this and >> the >> others to be power-controller? >> we probably would be changing them back to qmp or something more generic soon since the consensus was qmp wasn't a power-controller. So not sure if its worth the effort here.Hmm alright. Maybe mailbox? qmp is not generic. What does it stand for? qualcomm messaging protocol?
It's documented as ^^ in the git log but I guess it should be called qualcomm mailbox protocol instead. I don't think it can be called mailbox since it doesn't have mbox cells in its bindings. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
