[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220509150517.ij5lev2mlcem2epx@notapiano>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 11:05:17 -0400
From: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
<nfraprado@...labora.com>
To: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...gle.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, kernel@...labora.com,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@...iatek.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: remoteproc: mediatek: Make l1tcm reg
exclusive to mt819x
On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 10:27:18AM +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 5:32 AM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
> <nfraprado@...labora.com> wrote:
> > + - if:
> > + properties:
> > + compatible:
> > + enum:
> > + - mediatek,mt8192-scp
> > + - mediatek,mt8195-scp
> > + then:
> > + properties:
> > + reg:
> > + minItems: 3
> > + maxItems: 3
> > + reg-names:
> > + items:
> > + - const: sram
> > + - const: cfg
> > + - const: l1tcm
>
> "l1tcm" should be optional. Does it make more sense by using "minItems: 2"?
Hi Tzung-Bi,
thank you for the information. I did notice from the driver code that l1tcm was
treated as optional for mt8192, but since I wasn't sure if that was intended, I
kept it as required for the mt8192/mt8195 binding, since making it optional
later wouldn't break the ABI, but the opposite would.
But yes, since it is indeed optional for those platforms, I will lower minItems
to 2 for them in the next version.
Thanks,
Nícolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists