| Message ID | 20240628030309.1162012-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RESEND] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support system power protocol | expand |
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:03:09 +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > Add SCMI System Power Protocol bindings, and the protocol id is 0x12. > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:03:09AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > Add SCMI System Power Protocol bindings, and the protocol id is 0x12. > I think we must have this node only if it has dedicated channel or any other required property.
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support > system power protocol > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:03:09AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > Add SCMI System Power Protocol bindings, and the protocol id is > 0x12. > > > > I think we must have this node only if it has dedicated channel or any > other required property. I posted a patchset to support nodes not in device tree. And Cristian gave some comments: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Znv1p3FDiPSUNmBM@pluto/ i.MX95 no need dedicated channel for this node, but others may have. So I repost this patch, and with this binding change, the dtbs_check could pass for i.MX95 dts. Thanks, Peng. > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep
Hi Sudeep, > Subject: RE: [PATCH RESEND] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support > system power protocol > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: > support > > system power protocol > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:03:09AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > > Add SCMI System Power Protocol bindings, and the protocol id is > > 0x12. > > > > > > > I think we must have this node only if it has dedicated channel or any > > other required property. > > I posted a patchset to support nodes not in device tree. And Cristian > gave some comments: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Znv1p3FDiPSUNmBM@pluto/ > Please suggest what should I do to avoid the dtbs_check issue. Should I switch back to https://lore.kernel.org/all/Znv1p3FDiPSUNmBM@pluto/ or else? Thanks, Peng. > i.MX95 no need dedicated channel for this node, but others may have. > So I repost this patch, and with this binding change, the dtbs_check > could pass for i.MX95 dts. > > Thanks, > Peng. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Sudeep
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH RESEND] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support > > system power protocol > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: > > support > > > system power protocol > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:03:09AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > Add SCMI System Power Protocol bindings, and the protocol id is > > > 0x12. > > > > > > > > > > I think we must have this node only if it has dedicated channel or any > > > other required property. > > > > I posted a patchset to support nodes not in device tree. And Cristian > > gave some comments: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Znv1p3FDiPSUNmBM@pluto/ > > > > Please suggest what should I do to avoid the dtbs_check issue. > > Should I switch back to > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Znv1p3FDiPSUNmBM@pluto/ > or else? > Sorry I need to discuss with Cristain and decide. I might have already discussed but I can't recall the details or decision(if any) made after that. He is away now, will get back once we discuss and see what is the best approach. -- Regards, Sudeep
Hi Sudeep, Cristian, > Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support > system power protocol > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 12:15:20PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > Hi Sudeep, > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH RESEND] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: > support > > > system power protocol > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: > > > support > > > > system power protocol > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:03:09AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > > > Add SCMI System Power Protocol bindings, and the protocol id > is > > > > 0x12. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we must have this node only if it has dedicated channel or > > > > any other required property. > > > > > > I posted a patchset to support nodes not in device tree. And > > > Cristian gave some comments: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Znv1p3FDiPSUNmBM@pluto/ > > > > > > > Please suggest what should I do to avoid the dtbs_check issue. > > > > Should I switch back to > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Znv1p3FDiPSUNmBM@pluto/ > > or else? > > > > Sorry I need to discuss with Cristain and decide. I might have already > discussed but I can't recall the details or decision(if any) made after > that. He is away now, will get back once we discuss and see what is the > best approach. > Do you have any update on this? Thanks, Peng. > -- > Regards, > Sudeep
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:03:09 +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > Add SCMI System Power Protocol bindings, and the protocol id is 0x12. > Applied to sudeep.holla/linux (for-next/scmi/updates), thanks! [1/1] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support system power protocol https://git.kernel.org/sudeep.holla/c/4d5921a39f67 -- Regards, Sudeep
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml index 4d823f3b1f0e..ebf384e76df1 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml @@ -145,6 +145,14 @@ properties: required: - '#power-domain-cells' + protocol@12: + $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node' + unevaluatedProperties: false + + properties: + reg: + const: 0x12 + protocol@13: $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node' unevaluatedProperties: false