Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] dt-bindings: sram: qcom,imem: Allow modem-tables
From: Konrad Dybcio <hidden>
Date: 2025-07-30 12:07:11
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-devicetree, lkml
On 7/15/25 8:37 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 14/07/2025 19:53, Konrad Dybcio wrote:quoted
On 5/27/25 1:42 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:quoted
On 27/05/2025 13:36, Konrad Dybcio wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml index 2711f90d9664b70fcd1e2f7e2dfd3386ed5c1952..7c882819222dc04190db357ac6f9a3a35137cc9e 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/qcom,imem.yaml@@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ properties: $ref: /schemas/power/reset/syscon-reboot-mode.yaml# patternProperties: + "^modem-tables@[0-9a-f]+$": + description: Region reserved for the IP AcceleratorMissing additionalProperties: false, which would point you that this is incomplete (or useless because empty).How do I describe a 'stupid' node that is just a reg?With "reg" - similarly to many syscon bindings.Is this sort of inline style acceptable, or should I introduce a separate file?It's fine, assuming that it is desired in general. We do not describe individual memory regions of syscon nodes and this is a syscon. If this is NVMEM (which it looks like), then could use NVMEM bindings to describe its cells - individual regions. But otherwise we just don't.
It's volatile on-chip memory
There are many exceptions in other platforms, mostly old or even unreviewed by DT maintainers, so they are not a recommended example. This would need serious justification WHY you need to describe the child. Why phandle to the main node is not enough for consumers.
It's simply a region of the SRAM, which needs to be IOMMU-mapped in a specific manner (should IMEM move away from syscon+simple-mfd to mmio-sram?). Describing slices is the DT way to pass them (like under NVMEM providers).
If the reason is - to instantiate child device driver - then as well no. This has been NAKed on the lists many times - you need resources if the child should be a separate node. Address space is one resource but not enough, because it can easily be obtained from the parent/main node.
There is no additional driver for this Konrad