Thread (15 messages) 15 messages, 4 authors, 2025-08-03

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 Accelerator
Missing 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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help