[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7c5d9ba-f5c4-48ff-a65c-da7d7d8d8b32@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:23:34 -0800
From: Tanmay Shah <tanmays@....com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: sram: Tightly Coupled Memory (TCM) bindings
On 1/17/23 12:16 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/01/2023 18:43, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> On 1/15/23 6:38 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 13/01/2023 19:08, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/23 11:52 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 13/01/2023 08:30, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>>>>>> This patch introduces bindings for TCM memory address space on AMD-xilinx
>>>>>> platforms. As of now TCM addresses are hardcoded in xilinx remoteproc
>>>>>> driver. This bindings will help in defining TCM in device-tree and
>>>>>> make it's access platform agnostic and data-driven from the driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings". The "dt-bindings"
>>>>> prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
>>>> Ack.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Where is driver or DTS? Are you now adding a dead binding without users?
>>>> TCM is used by drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c driver. Howerver,
>>>> we have hardcode addresses in TCM as bindings are not available yet.
>>> I don't see usage of these compatibles there. You also did not supply
>>> DTS here. Please provide users of bindings within the same patchset.
>>
>> ACK. I will supply dts as well.
>>
>> However, Is it ok if I convert this patch to RFC patch, and once
>> bindings are fixed I will send actual patch with driver support.
>>
>> If bindings design is not correct then I might have to change
>> corresponding driver design lot.
> First, why this driver is particularly special? Why should have other
> treatment then all other cases?
It's not different than others and shouldn't be treated differently. I
just didn't know correct bindings representation.
Now I have some idea how this should be represented, so I will send
bindings patch, dts patch and driver patch all in same series.
>
> Second, so think about bindings and do not submit something for "driver"
> but something describing hardware.
ACK. It will take me some time to post next patch, as I will add support
of this tcm device in xlnx remoteproc driver as well.
Thanks for all your suggestions, they were helpful.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists