On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:35:58AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 05:31:36PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 04:23:44PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote: > > > Hi Valentina, > > > > > > On 2024-09-12 12:00 PM, Valentina Fernandez wrote: > > > > Add a dt-binding for the Microchip Inter-Processor Communication (IPC) > > > > mailbox controller. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Valentina Fernandez <valentina.fernandezalanis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > .../bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml | 115 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 115 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..dc2cbd5eb28f > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > +--- > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml# > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > + > > > > +title: Microchip Inter-processor communication (IPC) mailbox controller > > > > + > > > > +maintainers: > > > > + - Valentina Fernandez <valentina.fernandezalanis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > + > > > > +description: > > > > + The Microchip Inter-processor Communication (IPC) facilitates > > > > + message passing between processors using an interrupt signaling > > > > + mechanism. > > > > + This SBI interface is compatible with the Mi-V Inter-hart > > > > + Communication (IHC) IP. > > > > + The microchip,sbi-ipc compatible string is inteded for use by software > > > > + running in supervisor privileged mode (s-mode). The SoC-specific > > > > + compatibles are inteded for use by the SBI implementation in machine > > > > + mode (m-mode). > > > > > > There is a lot of conditional logic in this binding for how small it is. Would > > > it make sense to split this into two separate bindings? For example, with the > > > current binding microchip,ihc-chan-disabled-mask is allowed for the SBI > > > interface, but doesn't look like it belongs there. > > > > I dunno. Part of me says that because this is two compatibles for the > > same piece of hardware (the choice depending on which programming model > > you use) they should be documented together. The other part of me is of > > the opinion that they effectively describe different things, given one > > describes the hardware and the other describes a firmware interface that > > may have any sort of hardware backing it. > > > > I suppose it's more of a problem for "us" (that being me/Rob/Krzysztof) > > than for Valentina, and how to handle firmware interfaces to hardware > > like this is one of the topics that's planned for Krzysztof's devicetree > > BoF session at LPC. > > If how the client interacts with the device is fundamentally different, > then I think different compatibles is fine. It wasn't about different compatibles (which I think are non-debatable here) it's whether or not the different compatibles should be in their own binding files.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
