diff mbox

[v4,6/8] dt-bindings: Add support for Amlogic GXBB SCPI Interface

Message ID 1475652814-30619-7-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Neil Armstrong Oct. 5, 2016, 7:33 a.m. UTC
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Olof Johansson Oct. 29, 2016, 6:39 p.m. UTC | #1
Hi,


On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote:
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
> index faa4b44..04bc171 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations.
>
>  Required properties:
>
> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
> +- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi"

This doesn't seem right to document here. If anything you might want
to have a table of more-specific-compatibles for specific
implementations, but "arm,scpi" should still be the compatible of the
node (just not the most specific one).

Also, documenting it here indiciates that non-amlogic implementations
can/should use that compatible, which is misleading.

>  - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers
>           All the channels reserved by remote SCP firmware for use by
>           SCPI message protocol should be specified in any order
> @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ A small area of SRAM is reserved for SCPI communication between application
>  processors and SCP.
>
>  Required properties:
> -- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno
> +- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno,
> +               or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sram" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.

Maybe you'd be better of with a meson-specific document that refers to
these but with different compatible values.

Come to think of it, the Juno-specific one maybe shouldn't be in
arm,scpi at all, since that adds confusion here.

It's somewhat confusing that ARM is both a platform, architecture and
in some cases implementer of specific systems. :)

>  The rest of the properties should follow the generic mmio-sram description
>  found in ../../sram/sram.txt
> @@ -70,7 +71,8 @@ Each sub-node represents the reserved area for SCPI.
>  Required sub-node properties:
>  - reg : The base offset and size of the reserved area with the SRAM
>  - compatible : should be "arm,juno-scp-shmem" for Non-secure SRAM based
> -              shared memory on Juno platforms
> +              shared memory on Juno platforms or
> +              "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.

Same here. It won't scale if all vendors are expected to add an entry here.


-Olof
Sudeep Holla Nov. 2, 2016, 10:20 p.m. UTC | #2
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:39:05AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote:
> > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 8 +++++---
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
> > index faa4b44..04bc171 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
> > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations.
> >
> >  Required properties:
> >
> > -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
> > +- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi"
> 
> This doesn't seem right to document here. If anything you might want
> to have a table of more-specific-compatibles for specific
> implementations, but "arm,scpi" should still be the compatible of the
> node (just not the most specific one).
> 

I completely agree with you and I was pushing for a generic "arm,legacy-scpi"
compatible until this binding was acked by Rob.

Anyways, I will add the generic compatible and post the changes.

> Also, documenting it here indiciates that non-amlogic implementations
> can/should use that compatible, which is misleading.
>

Agreed, it's better to keep them out of this generic binding document.

> >  - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers
> >           All the channels reserved by remote SCP firmware for use by
> >           SCPI message protocol should be specified in any order
> > @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ A small area of SRAM is reserved for SCPI communication between application
> >  processors and SCP.
> >
> >  Required properties:
> > -- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno
> > +- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno,
> > +               or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sram" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.
> 
> Maybe you'd be better of with a meson-specific document that refers to
> these but with different compatible values.
> 
> Come to think of it, the Juno-specific one maybe shouldn't be in
> arm,scpi at all, since that adds confusion here.
> 
> It's somewhat confusing that ARM is both a platform, architecture and
> in some cases implementer of specific systems. :)
> 

Sorry for that, I will move all juno specific references in the binding
out of this document(except the examples, which I assume should be fine)

> >  The rest of the properties should follow the generic mmio-sram description
> >  found in ../../sram/sram.txt
> > @@ -70,7 +71,8 @@ Each sub-node represents the reserved area for SCPI.
> >  Required sub-node properties:
> >  - reg : The base offset and size of the reserved area with the SRAM
> >  - compatible : should be "arm,juno-scp-shmem" for Non-secure SRAM based
> > -              shared memory on Juno platforms
> > +              shared memory on Juno platforms or
> > +              "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.
> 
> Same here. It won't scale if all vendors are expected to add an entry here.
> 

I will rework the patches to address the concerns as I too did share same
concern.


Hi Neil,

You may need to rework the DTS files based on that, please be aware of
that and make the necessary changes.

--
Regards,
Sudeep
Rob Herring (Arm) Nov. 3, 2016, 3:51 a.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:39:05AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote:
>> > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>> > ---
>> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 8 +++++---
>> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>> > index faa4b44..04bc171 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>> > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations.
>> >
>> >  Required properties:
>> >
>> > -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
>> > +- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi"
>>
>> This doesn't seem right to document here. If anything you might want
>> to have a table of more-specific-compatibles for specific
>> implementations, but "arm,scpi" should still be the compatible of the
>> node (just not the most specific one).
>>
>
> I completely agree with you and I was pushing for a generic "arm,legacy-scpi"
> compatible until this binding was acked by Rob.

Just because I ack something, that doesn't mean don't review or
comment on it further.

>
> Anyways, I will add the generic compatible and post the changes.
>
>> Also, documenting it here indiciates that non-amlogic implementations
>> can/should use that compatible, which is misleading.
>>
>
> Agreed, it's better to keep them out of this generic binding document.
>
>> >  - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers
>> >           All the channels reserved by remote SCP firmware for use by
>> >           SCPI message protocol should be specified in any order
>> > @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ A small area of SRAM is reserved for SCPI communication between application
>> >  processors and SCP.
>> >
>> >  Required properties:
>> > -- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno
>> > +- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno,
>> > +               or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sram" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.
>>
>> Maybe you'd be better of with a meson-specific document that refers to
>> these but with different compatible values.
>>
>> Come to think of it, the Juno-specific one maybe shouldn't be in
>> arm,scpi at all, since that adds confusion here.
>>
>> It's somewhat confusing that ARM is both a platform, architecture and
>> in some cases implementer of specific systems. :)
>>
>
> Sorry for that, I will move all juno specific references in the binding
> out of this document(except the examples, which I assume should be fine)
>
>> >  The rest of the properties should follow the generic mmio-sram description
>> >  found in ../../sram/sram.txt
>> > @@ -70,7 +71,8 @@ Each sub-node represents the reserved area for SCPI.
>> >  Required sub-node properties:
>> >  - reg : The base offset and size of the reserved area with the SRAM
>> >  - compatible : should be "arm,juno-scp-shmem" for Non-secure SRAM based
>> > -              shared memory on Juno platforms
>> > +              shared memory on Juno platforms or
>> > +              "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.
>>
>> Same here. It won't scale if all vendors are expected to add an entry here.
>>
>
> I will rework the patches to address the concerns as I too did share same
> concern.

Guess I was optimistic that *every* platform wouldn't be different in
some way. I should know better by now...

Rob
Sudeep Holla Nov. 3, 2016, 4:37 a.m. UTC | #4
On 02/11/16 21:51, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:39:05AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote:
>>>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt | 8 +++++---
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> index faa4b44..04bc171 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
>>>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations.
>>>>
>>>>  Required properties:
>>>>
>>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
>>>> +- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi"
>>>
>>> This doesn't seem right to document here. If anything you might want
>>> to have a table of more-specific-compatibles for specific
>>> implementations, but "arm,scpi" should still be the compatible of the
>>> node (just not the most specific one).
>>>
>>
>> I completely agree with you and I was pushing for a generic "arm,legacy-scpi"
>> compatible until this binding was acked by Rob.
>
> Just because I ack something, that doesn't mean don't review or
> comment on it further.
>

Sorry I didn't mean to say that. I was initially pushing for the generic
binding and since it was reworked many times already, I didn't want to
postpone any further just for sake of that. I completely understand that
component maintainers have to review the bindings too. So clearly it was
my mistake.

>>
>> Anyways, I will add the generic compatible and post the changes.
>>
>>> Also, documenting it here indiciates that non-amlogic implementations
>>> can/should use that compatible, which is misleading.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, it's better to keep them out of this generic binding document.
>>
>>>>  - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers
>>>>           All the channels reserved by remote SCP firmware for use by
>>>>           SCPI message protocol should be specified in any order
>>>> @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ A small area of SRAM is reserved for SCPI communication between application
>>>>  processors and SCP.
>>>>
>>>>  Required properties:
>>>> -- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno
>>>> +- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno,
>>>> +               or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sram" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.
>>>
>>> Maybe you'd be better of with a meson-specific document that refers to
>>> these but with different compatible values.
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, the Juno-specific one maybe shouldn't be in
>>> arm,scpi at all, since that adds confusion here.
>>>
>>> It's somewhat confusing that ARM is both a platform, architecture and
>>> in some cases implementer of specific systems. :)
>>>
>>
>> Sorry for that, I will move all juno specific references in the binding
>> out of this document(except the examples, which I assume should be fine)
>>
>>>>  The rest of the properties should follow the generic mmio-sram description
>>>>  found in ../../sram/sram.txt
>>>> @@ -70,7 +71,8 @@ Each sub-node represents the reserved area for SCPI.
>>>>  Required sub-node properties:
>>>>  - reg : The base offset and size of the reserved area with the SRAM
>>>>  - compatible : should be "arm,juno-scp-shmem" for Non-secure SRAM based
>>>> -              shared memory on Juno platforms
>>>> +              shared memory on Juno platforms or
>>>> +              "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.
>>>
>>> Same here. It won't scale if all vendors are expected to add an entry here.
>>>
>>
>> I will rework the patches to address the concerns as I too did share same
>> concern.
>
> Guess I was optimistic that *every* platform wouldn't be different in
> some way. I should know better by now...

:)
Neil Armstrong Nov. 3, 2016, 8:48 a.m. UTC | #5
On 11/02/2016 11:20 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:39:05AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> 
> I will rework the patches to address the concerns as I too did share same
> concern.
> 
> 
> Hi Neil,
> 
> You may need to rework the DTS files based on that, please be aware of
> that and make the necessary changes.


Hi,

I will post the necessary changes since kevin already applied the previous patches.

Thanks,
Neil

> 
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
>
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
index faa4b44..04bc171 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@  by Linux to initiate various system control and power operations.
 
 Required properties:
 
-- compatible : should be "arm,scpi"
+- compatible : should be "arm,scpi" or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scpi"
 - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers
 	  All the channels reserved by remote SCP firmware for use by
 	  SCPI message protocol should be specified in any order
@@ -60,7 +60,8 @@  A small area of SRAM is reserved for SCPI communication between application
 processors and SCP.
 
 Required properties:
-- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno
+- compatible : should be "arm,juno-sram-ns" for Non-secure SRAM on Juno,
+		or "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sram" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.
 
 The rest of the properties should follow the generic mmio-sram description
 found in ../../sram/sram.txt
@@ -70,7 +71,8 @@  Each sub-node represents the reserved area for SCPI.
 Required sub-node properties:
 - reg : The base offset and size of the reserved area with the SRAM
 - compatible : should be "arm,juno-scp-shmem" for Non-secure SRAM based
-	       shared memory on Juno platforms
+	       shared memory on Juno platforms or
+	       "amlogic,meson-gxbb-scp-shmem" for Amlogic GXBB SoC.
 
 Sensor bindings for the sensors based on SCPI Message Protocol
 --------------------------------------------------------------