27.01.2020 15:21, Thierry Reding пишет: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:12:11PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 21.01.2020 18:54, Thierry Reding пишет: >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:18:43PM +0200, Georgi Djakov wrote: >>>> On 1/21/20 16:10, Thierry Reding wrote: > [...] >>>>> I'm not sure if that TEGRA_ICC_EMEM makes a lot of sense. It's always >>>>> going to be the same and it's arbitrarily defined, so it's effectively >>>>> useless. But other than that it looks good. >>>> >>>> Well, in most cases the target would be the EMEM, so that's fine. I have seen >>>> that other vendors that may have an additional internal memory, especially >>>> dedicated to some DSPs and in such cases the bandwidth needs are different for >>>> the two paths (to internal memory and DDR). >>> >>> Most chips have a small internal memory that can be used, though it >>> seldomly is. However, in that case I would expect the target to be a >>> completely different device, so it'd look more like this: >>> >>> interconnects = <&mc TEGRA186_MEMORY_CLIENT_BPMPR &iram>, >>> ...; >>> >>> I don't think EMEM has any "downstream" other than external memory. >> >> The node ID should be mandatory in terms of interconnect, even if it's a >> single node. EMC (provider) != EMEM (endpoint). > > I don't understand why. An ID only makes sense if you've got multiple > endpoints. For example, a regulator is a provider with a single endpoint > so we don't specify an ID. Because this is how ICC binding is defined, unless I'm missing something. > By its very definition an ID is used to identify something and we use it > with a phandle to create a unique pair that identifies a resource within > whatever the phandle represents, with the goal to differentiate it from > other resources within the same provider. However, if there's only one > such resource, the ID becomes redundant because the phandle without an > ID is already unique and there's no need to differentiate with an extra > ID. Georgi, do you think it is possible to support what Thierry is asking for?
