Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:09:48 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc transports |
| |
On 2020-02-07 11:00, Peng Fan wrote: >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc >> transports >> >> On 2020-02-07 10:47, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:08:36AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >> On 2020-02-06 13:01, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote: >> >> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> >> >> > >> >> > SCMI could use SMC/HVC as tranports, so add into devicetree binding >> >> > doc. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> >> >> > --- >> >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 4 +++- >> >> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> > >> >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt >> >> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt >> >> > index f493d69e6194..03cff8b55a93 100644 >> >> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt >> >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt >> >> > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Required properties: >> >> > >> >> > The scmi node with the following properties shall be under the >> >> > /firmware/ node. >> >> > >> >> > -- compatible : shall be "arm,scmi" >> >> > +- compatible : shall be "arm,scmi" or "arm,scmi-smc" >> >> > - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers. It >> >> > should contain >> >> > exactly one or two mailboxes, one for transmitting messages("tx") >> >> > and another optional for receiving the notifications("rx") if >> >> > @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ The scmi node with the following properties shall >> >> > be under the /firmware/ node. >> >> > protocol identifier for a given sub-node. >> >> > - #size-cells : should be '0' as 'reg' property doesn't have any size >> >> > associated with it. >> >> > +- arm,smc-id : SMC id required when using smc transports >> >> > +- arm,hvc-id : HVC id required when using hvc transports >> >> > >> >> > Optional properties: >> >> >> >> Not directly related to DT: Why do we need to distinguish between SMC >> >> and HVC? >> > >> > IIUC you want just one property to get the function ID ? Does that >> > align with what you are saying ? I wanted to ask the same question and >> > I see no need for 2 different properties. >> >> Exactly. Using SMC or HVC should come from the context, and there is >> zero >> value in having different different IDs, depending on the conduit. >> >> We *really* want SMC and HVC to behave the same way. Any attempt to >> make them different should just be NAKed. > > ok. Then just like psci node, > Add a "method" property for each protocol, and add "arm,func-id" to > indicate the ID. > > How about this?
Or rather just a function ID, full stop. the conduit *MUST* be inherited from the PSCI context.
M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
| |