Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc transports
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-02-07 10:08:40
Also in:
linux-devicetree, lkml
On 2020-02-06 13:01, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> SCMI could use SMC/HVC as tranports, so add into devicetree binding doc. Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txtb/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt index f493d69e6194..03cff8b55a93 100644--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Required properties: The scmi node with the following properties shall be under the/firmware/ node. -- compatible : shall be "arm,scmi" +- compatible : shall be "arm,scmi" or "arm,scmi-smc" - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers. It should contain exactly one or two mailboxes, one for transmitting messages("tx") and another optional for receiving the notifications("rx") if@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ The scmi node with the following properties shall beunder the /firmware/ node. protocol identifier for a given sub-node. - #size-cells : should be '0' as 'reg' property doesn't have any size associated with it. +- arm,smc-id : SMC id required when using smc transports +- arm,hvc-id : HVC id required when using hvc transports Optional properties:
Not directly related to DT: Why do we need to distinguish between SMC
and HVC?
Other SMC/HVC capable protocols are able to pick the right one based on
the PSCI
conduit.
This is how the Spectre mitigations work already. Why is that any
different?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel