[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <550e04f5-acd9-e50a-1aae-4e639951e35e@linaro.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 10:50:52 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
~okias/devicetree@...ts.sr.ht, Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: convert Qualcomm SCM binding to
the yaml
On 31/01/2022 22:26, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sat 18 Dec 13:40 CST 2021, David Heidelberg wrote:
>
>> Convert Qualcomm SCM firmware binding to the yaml format.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
>> ---
>> This patch comes with followup question -> since not all definitions
>> follow `"qcom,scm-*chipset*", "qcom,scm"`, should I change them or adjust this
>> binding to cover all cases?
>>
>
> I don't remember why some platforms has the generic "fallback" and
> others doesn't. I don't have any objections to defining the binding as
> you've done.
Looking at the driver it seems that there some differences between
certain versions and generic qcom,scm. For example they require bus
clock which could mean they won't work without it on a "qcom,scm"
compatible. That could mean that original "qcom,scm" also required that
bus clock but it was for example always enabled. Or that clock was never
needed on "qcom,scm".
I think this should be converted without generic fallback, IOW, the
original bindings are not accurate and driver+DTS are better hints how
it should work.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists