| Message ID | 1581566330-1029-2-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | firmware: arm_scmi: add smc/hvc transports support | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | success |
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:58:49AM +0800, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote: > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > SCMI could use SMC/HVC as tranports. Since there is no > standardized id, we need to use vendor specific id. So > add into devicetree binding doc. > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > index f493d69e6194..dacc62dc248b 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ The scmi node with the following properties shall be under the /firmware/ node. > protocol identifier for a given sub-node. > - #size-cells : should be '0' as 'reg' property doesn't have any size > associated with it. > +- smc-id : SMC id required when using smc or hvc transports IIUC, "arm,smc-id" is preferred more. Why did you drop "arm,scmi-smc" ? -- Regards, Sudeep
Hi Sudeep, > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc > transports > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:58:49AM +0800, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote: > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > SCMI could use SMC/HVC as tranports. Since there is no standardized > > id, we need to use vendor specific id. So add into devicetree binding > > doc. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > index f493d69e6194..dacc62dc248b 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ The scmi node with the following properties shall be > under the /firmware/ node. > > protocol identifier for a given sub-node. > > - #size-cells : should be '0' as 'reg' property doesn't have any size > > associated with it. > > +- smc-id : SMC id required when using smc or hvc transports > > IIUC, "arm,smc-id" is preferred more. ok. Fix in v3. > > Why did you drop "arm,scmi-smc" ? Per our discuss in v1 patchset, mailbox/smc-id could be used to differentiate mailbox and smc transports. https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/11/226 So I still use "arm,scmi" for smc tranports. Thanks, Peng. > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt index f493d69e6194..dacc62dc248b 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ The scmi node with the following properties shall be under the /firmware/ node. protocol identifier for a given sub-node. - #size-cells : should be '0' as 'reg' property doesn't have any size associated with it. +- smc-id : SMC id required when using smc or hvc transports Optional properties: