On 15/10/2024 14:09, Valentina.FernandezAlanis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 16/09/2024 21:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >> >> On 12/09/2024 19:00, Valentina Fernandez wrote: >>> Microchip family of RISC-V SoCs typically has or more clusters. These >>> clusters can be configured to run in Asymmetric Multi Processing (AMP) >>> mode >> >> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "binding for". The >> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings. >> See also: >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18 >> >>> >>> Add a dt-binding for the Microchip IPC Remoteproc platform driver. >>> >> >> Binding is for hardware, not driver. Please rephrase it to describe >> hardware. >> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Valentina Fernandez <valentina.fernandezalanis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../remoteproc/microchip,ipc-remoteproc.yaml | 84 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/microchip,ipc-remoteproc.yaml >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/microchip,ipc-remoteproc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/microchip,ipc-remoteproc.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..1765c68d22cf >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/microchip,ipc-remoteproc.yaml >>> @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>> +%YAML 1.2 >>> +--- >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/remoteproc/microchip,ipc-remoteproc.yaml# >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>> + >>> +title: Microchip IPC Remote Processor >>> + >>> +description: >>> + Microchip family of RISC-V SoCs typically have one or more >>> + clusters. These clusters can be configured to run in an Asymmetric >>> + Multi Processing (AMP) mode where clusters are split in independent >>> + software contexts. >>> + >>> + This document defines the binding for the remoteproc component that >>> + loads and boots firmwares on remote clusters. >> >> Don't say that binding is a binding for. Say what this hardware piece is. >> >>> + >>> + This SBI interface is compatible with the Mi-V Inter-hart >>> + Communication (IHC) IP. >>> + >>> +maintainers: >>> + - Valentina Fernandez <valentina.fernandezalanis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + const: microchip,ipc-remoteproc >> >> That's quite generic. Basically this says it will handle IPC of all >> possible Microchip SoCs, not only RISC-V but also ARM and whatever you >> come up with. > IPC is the actual name of the hardware block described in this binding. > I'll update the description of the binding in v2 to mention this. > > Additionally, I'll rename the compatible to microchip,ipc-sbi-remoteproc > to further clarify that this binding is intended for devices using the > Microchip IPC hardware block and for devices with an SBI interface (RISC-V). Well, still generic. Explain why this deserves exception from specific SoC compatibles. Best regards, Krzysztof
