[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<AM9PR04MB86040DFD0C0EF5D904BF960D95DA2@AM9PR04MB8604.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:19:29 +0000
From: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@....com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Sascha
Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Pengutronix Kernel Team
<kernel@...gutronix.de>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Rob Herring
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
CC: "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw
binding doc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 11:46 AM
> To: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@....com>; Jonathan Corbet
> <corbet@....net>; Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzk+dt@...nel.org>; Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>; Shawn Guo
> <shawnguo@...nel.org>; Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>;
> Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>; Fabio Estevam
> <festevam@...il.com>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>; Krzysztof
> Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
> Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> devicetree@...r.kernel.org; imx@...ts.linux.dev; linux-arm-
> kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add imx-se-fw
> binding doc
>
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or
> opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report
> this email' button
>
>
> On 08/07/2024 07:50, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> >> Drop redundant/obvious parts.
> > Will replace above two description line with the below two.
> > - description: mailbox phandle to send message to se firmware
> > - description: mailbox phandle to receive message from se
> > firmware
> >
> >>
> >> So two mailboxes?
> > Two handles of the same mailbox.
> >
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + mbox-names:
> >>> + items:
> >>> + - const: tx
> >>> + - const: rx
> >>> + - const: txdb
> >>> + - const: rxdb
> >>
> >> 4 mailboxes? This cannot be different.
> > mbox-names can have any of the above mentioned 4 values.
> > And two values are minimum, required.
>
> No, I said it cannot be different. If two are minimum, then you can have here
> 4, right? But earlier you said you can have only 2. It does not make any sense.
Understood. Will fix this with following changes.
- - const: tx
- - const: rx
- - const: txdb
- - const: rxdb
- minItems: 2
+ - enum:
+ - tx
+ - txdb
+ - enum:
+ - rx
+ - rxdb
>
> >
> >>
> >>> + minItems: 2
> >>> +
> >>> + memory-region:
> >>> + description: contains the phandle to reserved external memory.
> >>
> >> Drop
> > Will remove the line " description: contains the phandle to reserved external
> memory."
> >
> >>
> >>> + items:
> >>> + - description: It is used by secure-enclave firmware. It is an optional
> >>> + property based on compatible and identifier to
> >>> + communication
> >> interface.
> >>> + (see bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt)
> >>> +
> >>> + sram:
> >>> + description: contains the phandle to sram.
> >>
> >> Drop
> > Will remove " description: contains the phandle to sram."
> >
> >>
> >>> + items:
> >>> + - description: Phandle to the device SRAM. It is an optional property
> >>> + based on compatible and identifier to communication interface.
> >>> +
> >>> +required:
> >>> + - compatible
> >>> + - reg
> >>> + - mboxes
> >>> + - mbox-names
> >>> +
> >>> +additionalProperties: false
> >>
> >> Keep it after allOf block
> >
> > In V2, it is after allOf block.
> > In previous comments, it was commented to place allOf block, after
> required.
> > I am little confused.
>
> So why did you implement it entirely different? Read the comment from Conor
> and from me again. I am sorry, but repeating the same three times (once by
> Conor, twice by me) is quite a waste of time.
>
> Open example-schema. How is it done there?
Understood the point. Referred to the example-schema.
Will correct as per the example-schema.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists