[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b2a34dcc-215d-c9b4-7d78-3830f1769ad6@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 18:12:08 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@....com>,
Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] Documentation: devicetree: add bindings to support
ARM MHU doorbells
On 31/05/17 18:08, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:23:44PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 25/05/17 14:22, Jassi Brar wrote:
[...]
>>> Every MHU controller can by driven as "arm,mhu-doorbell" or "arm,mhu"
>>> equally fine. So you are basically smuggling a s/w feature into DT.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree, the spec clearly says each bit can be used for different
>> event and hence we need a way to specify that in DT when used as doorbell.
>
> I think the point is that you should not continue to use both. The
> single cell usage should be deprecated. Maybe you'll have to encode the
> 2nd cell when not used as 0 means bit 0?
>
Instead of having special encoding, I like your below suggestion on
using #mbox-cells to distinguish the usage modes.
> Arguably, you don't even need a new compatible. #mbox-cells tells you
> whether to use the old or new binding. I'm fine either way though.
>
Ah good point, yes we can distinguish with #mbox-cells. I will drop the
new compatible.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists