On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 11:09:48AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:

On 2020-02-07 11:00, Peng Fan wrote:

quoted

quoted

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc
transports

On 2020-02-07 10:47, Sudeep Holla wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:08:36AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

On 2020-02-06 13:01, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote:

quoted

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.txt

b/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

be under 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?

IIUC you want just one property to get the function ID ? Does that
align with what you are saying ? I wanted to ask the same question and
I see no need for 2 different properties.

Exactly. Using SMC or HVC should come from the context, and there is
zero
value in having different different IDs, depending on the conduit.

We *really* want SMC and HVC to behave the same way. Any attempt to
make them different should just be NAKed.

ok. Then just like psci node,
Add a "method" property for each protocol, and add "arm,func-id" to
indicate the ID.

How about this?

Or rather just a function ID, full stop. the conduit *MUST* be inherited
from the PSCI context.

Absolutely, this is what I was expecting.

Peng,

You have already introduced a compatible for smc/hvc transport
instead of default mailbox, why do you need anything more ? Just
use SMC or HVC conduit from PSCI/SMCCC. I don't think you need anything
more than the function ID.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel