Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: Add qcom specific hvc transport for SCMI
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <hidden>
Date: 2023-07-18 18:12:20
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-arm-msm, lkml
On 18/07/2023 18:08, Nikunj Kela wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Introduce compatible "qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem" for SCMI transport channel for Qualcomm virtual platforms. The compatible mandates a shared memory channel. Signed-off-by: Nikunj Kela <redacted> --- .../bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 69 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+)diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml index b138f3d23df8..605b1e997a85 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml@@ -45,6 +45,9 @@ properties: - description: SCMI compliant firmware with OP-TEE transport items: - const: linaro,scmi-optee + - description: SCMI compliant firmware with Qualcomm hvc/shmem transport + items: + - const: qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem interrupts: description:@@ -321,6 +324,16 @@ else: required: - linaro,optee-channel-id + else: + if: + properties: + compatible: + contains: + const: qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem + then: + required: + - shmem
Unfortunately this pattern if-else-if-else-if-else does not scale well. Please convert all entries first to allOf:if:then,if:then,if:then (in new patch), and then add new if:then:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ examples: - | firmware {@@ -444,6 +457,62 @@ examples: }; }; + - | + firmware { + scmi_dpu {
No underscores in node names. Node names should be generic. See also an explanation and list of examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification: https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation
+ compatible = "qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem";
+ shmem = <&shmem_dpu>;
+
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
+ scmi_pd_dpu: protocol@11 {
+ reg = <0x11>;
+ #power-domain-cells = <1>;
+ };
+ };
+Add only one example, but then only if it differs significantly. I see no differences - except compatible - so maybe no point of examples.
+ scmi_gpu {
+ compatible = "qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem";
+ shmem = <&shmem_gpu>;This example for sure is not needed - you duplicate above.
+
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 931 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
+ interrupt-names = "a2p";
+
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+
+ scmi_pd_gpu: protocol@11 {
+ reg = <0x11>;
+ #power-domain-cells = <1>;
+ };
+ };
+ };
+
+ soc {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+
+ sram@95c00000 {
+ compatible = "mmio-sram";
+ reg = <0x95c00000 0x10000>;
+
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+ ranges;
+
+ shmem_dpu: scmi-sram-dpu@95c00000 {
+ compatible = "arm,scmi-shmem";
+ reg = <0x95c00000 0x3f0>;
+ };How does these differ from existing example? Best regards, Krzysztof