[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250814070757.2267325-1-uwu@icenowy.me>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:07:53 +0800
From: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>
To: Drew Fustini <fustini@...nel.org>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Fu Wei <wefu@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczynski@...sung.com>
Cc: Han Gao <rabenda.cn@...il.com>,
Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>,
Yao Zi <ziyao@...root.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/4] riscv: dts: thead: th1520: Add mailbox for SBI-to-AON comm
In order to make system suspend / CPU hotplugging to work, the BSP
OpenSBI wants to talk to the AON firmware, and will parse the
information needed for this communication from the device tree.
This patchset tries to retrofit the thead,th1520-mbox binding for the
C910R mailbox, and assign it for SBI-to-AON communication.
The binding seems to be badly designed, and the retrofitting process
looks quite dirty. Should we just abandon the current compatible and
make a new one with a more proper binding?
Icenowy Zheng (4):
dt-bindings: mailbox: thead,th1520-mbox: retrofit for other mailboxes
dt-bindings: firmware: thead,th1520-aon: add a mailbox name for SBI
riscv: dts: thead: th1520: add reserved node for C910R mailbox
riscv: dts: thead: th1520: add mailbox channel for SBI-to-AON comm
.../bindings/firmware/thead,th1520-aon.yaml | 7 +--
.../bindings/mailbox/thead,th1520-mbox.yaml | 49 ++++++++++++++-----
arch/riscv/boot/dts/thead/th1520.dtsi | 20 +++++++-
3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
--
2.50.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists