On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 08:41 -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 05:18:01PM -0600, Hari Nagalla wrote: > > On 3/8/23 14:58, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > > +required: > > > > + - compatible > > > > + - reg > > > > + - reg-names > > > > + - ti,sci > > > > + - ti,sci-dev-id > > > > + - ti,sci-proc-ids > > > > + - resets > > > > + - firmware-name > > > > + - mboxes > > > The 'mboxes' property is marked as required but the description > > > section above > > > clearly state the M4F can operate without IPC. > > > > > Well, when the M4F is used as a safety processor it is typically > > booted from > > SBL/u-boot and may isolate the MCU domain from main domain/A53 to > > function > > in higher safety level. In these scenarios there is no remote proc > > handling > > of M4F life cycle management (LCM) and IPC. But, on the other hand, > > when the > > M4F is used as a non safety processor its LCM is handled by remote > > proc(main > > domain) and mailboxes for IPC are required. > > Well, what you wrote above is pretty much explained verbatim in the > "description" section of the bindings. Mailboxes are optional and as > such > should not be found under the "required" section. > Which means the memory regions are also optional as in the isolated case they're be no communications with the main domain. Martyn
