Re: [PATCH 2/7] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j721e-common-proc-board: Add mailboxes to C66x DSPs

From: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
To: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
Cc: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j721e-common-proc-board: Add mailboxes to C66x DSPs
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 05:42:39 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200825104239.lvdlz4sci3fe3nis@akan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b8f8f034-16fa-82c4-579f-a3432bf207e6@ti.com>

On 17:00-20200824, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Nishanth,
> 
> On 8/20/20 2:03 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 08:25-20200820, Suman Anna wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> I am just wondering if the carveouts and mbox linkage should be in the
> >>> common processor board? if that makes sense at all? I know we already
> >>> have other definitions.. Trying to see if we are making it harder to
> >>> understand the definition than that is necessary..
> >>
> >> In general, I consider these as stuff that needs to be added to the board dts
> >> files. You will see that this is what I have followed on all the TI
> >> AM57xx/DRA7xx boards. For J721E, we have a weird organization as the memory
> >> node, typically a board property, is defined in the som dtsi file, so the
> >> reserved memory nodes are also added in the som dtsi file. The convention I
> >> followed in general is to have the reserved-memory and memory nodes together.
> >>
> >> If you think the mailbox nodes should be moved into the SoM dts file, I could do
> > 
> > I think that might make more sense and less confusing. I'd rather
> > leave the processor board dts for more signal and interface hookup
> > related topics as it is done right now. if we do endup with too many
> > SoM duplication, then we should consider it's own dtsi
> > 
> >> it as a follow-on cleanup series, but would wait for the ABI 3.0 changes to be
> >> merged first.
> > 
> > Of course. We are expecting this to be part of rc2, please rebase and
> > post once the tag is out. next-20200820 has it already, if you want a
> > pre-look.
> > 
> 
> So, the ABI 3.0 changes are not part of -rc2, so, I cannot move the unrelated
> mailbox nodes/cleanup without conflicting with that series. Are you ok if I just
> move these nodes into the SoM dtsi file?

Lets introduce things properly: First cleanup rather creating a
kludgy intermediate state (half of r5 mbox nodes in proc, half of c6x
node in SoM etc).

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel