[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3e14a3a2-8686-42ce-8ea7-4a2380b2acdd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 07:03:15 -0800
From: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiumihalcea111@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, 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>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@....com>, Chancel Liu <chancel.liu@....com>,
linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: dt-bindings: fsl,mqs: make gpr optional for
SM-based SoCs
On 1/26/2026 6:16 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:18:42AM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 07:03:28AM -0800, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:
>>> From: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiu.mihalcea@....com>
>>>
>>> For SM-based SoCs (i.e. MX95, MX943), GPR configuration is performed by
>>> the SM coprocessor. Thus, the programming model needs no handle to the
>>> GPR node. Make it optional.
>> "programming model" look like software configuration.
>>
>> Thus, GPR is transparent to software and does not need to be described in the
>> device tree. Make it optional.
> I was expecting a new version of this with Frank's comments rolled in.
Hey Mark,
Sorry for taking ages with this. Got your message while preparing the patches. Just sent V2 a few mins. ago.
Thanks,
Laurentiu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists