From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com (Bjorn Andersson)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:25:42 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v7 1/3] mfd: devicetree: bindings: Add Qualcomm RPM DT
 binding
In-Reply-To: <2FC56515-E6AF-4A4D-9B04-70B4A8B2C4C7@codeaurora.org>
References: <1411428329-23172-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com>
 <1411428329-23172-2-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com>
 <334C6A04-9607-4E97-A7A7-2FEED5986E57@codeaurora.org>
 <20140930152838.GN28481@sonymobile.com>
 <2FC56515-E6AF-4A4D-9B04-70B4A8B2C4C7@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <20140930162541.GQ28481@sonymobile.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue 30 Sep 09:02 PDT 2014, Kumar Gala wrote:

> 
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson <Bjorn.Andersson@sonymobile.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed 24 Sep 09:39 PDT 2014, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> On Sep 22, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Bjorn Andersson <Bjorn.Andersson@sonymobile.com> wrote:
> >> 
> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.txt
> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> >>> +- qcom,ipc:
> >>> +     Usage: required
> >>> +     Value type: <prop-encoded-array>
> >>> +
> >>> +     Definition: three entries specifying the outgoing ipc bit used for
> >>> +                 signaling the RPM:
> >>> +                 - phandle to a syscon node representing the apcs registers
> >>> +                 - u32 representing offset to the register within the syscon
> >>> +                 - u32 representing the ipc bit within the register
> >>> +
> >> 
> >> Does this really ever differ for the SoCs, and even if it does why do we need
> >> to encode it in DT.  Can?t we determine it via the compatible setting?
> >> 
> > 
> > The two offsets could be hard coded, especially based on the compatible.
> > 
> > But I don't know if it's worth respinning this just to get those two number out
> > of here. Also this is now "symmetric" with the smd use cases, where it
> > shouldn't be hard coded.
> 
> I do think its worth respinning until the DT is agreed to as we shouldn?t
> be changing the binding.
> 

Correct, if there's valid reason for it.

> I?m not sure how being ?symmetric? with the smd use case maters if
> we are treating this RPM support vs RPM-SMD as two different things.
> 

Not rpm-smd but smd. Which is also used on family a and uses the same kpss-gcc
(or apcs) node as rpm for outgoing ipc on those platforms.

Regards,
Bjorn