From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D60C433E1 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:27:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D7020706 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:27:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="FayNhWSX"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="W0Qyupfp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 09D7020706 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=1aFBqQ49CQX/lhkuzbSBG9MTJE5iEGV+0Jek0EjFoFw=; b=FayNhWSXgm2mjFeezTwkOe5tx DHel8QfWnrYlCFa83bFeNb5eq7Y0pW4Ad+rRArRMjY0bde2cZb9rDDq5ZFJffu8jNpdrR1WxtLffP eGjy+k9WyPbxzw6O7HCvAs4ggkzm2vRp3vGo+/sTfPqGeMhRq8CQgU9PGv6HcsEFgv8V2HjG9KN5o mWiMv46A+PnYVFu6oJFCWjxBRHX1Z7grz32f7zE2ZqDJtIosmuvmdh5PnG91TC89BSOR4gr6l2LuQ qvDy9NeSYkm4msdBRHzlM5HpIHhZ9/Da+sTiMzjFfdndLLLAVxV8nphw9degCU4+Yf/FTCuP7ycch 0CffruIPw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kAchu-0007MY-Lj; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:26:02 +0000 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kAchr-0007LX-KK for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:26:00 +0000 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07PHPwDL077732; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:25:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1598376359; bh=wibygpru0/6xxBzGrmaY9/RxocqkAciiQVd3tvuYb2A=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=W0QyupfpCXgm6ixG58NULlv8KIh8J7b3KluBidPijZ1zPWYigsU4UIx3NQZWvkJR9 Ml8lMrq3sR3ZqoaZlNeodjX+21GRijLhRiIlxtIisP34rei7nN8HXXGowPeKvzQNI7 leWedXsanyqULjp33pJNb1UjrP29r+1OMUX5Dgk8= Received: from DLEE107.ent.ti.com (dlee107.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.37]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07PHPwv2089054 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:25:58 -0500 Received: from DLEE112.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.23) by DLEE107.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:25:58 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DLEE112.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:25:58 -0500 Received: from [10.250.70.134] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07PHPwoe080965; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:25:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j721e-common-proc-board: Add mailboxes to C66x DSPs To: Nishanth Menon References: <20200820010331.2911-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20200820010331.2911-3-s-anna@ti.com> <20200820114238.7ovvxq5n3fogzowi@akan> <8491a1bf-3665-8f23-6b75-34890566fcae@ti.com> <20200820190333.4ga5uob5tgsgwego@akan> <20200825104239.lvdlz4sci3fe3nis@akan> From: Suman Anna Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:25:48 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200825104239.lvdlz4sci3fe3nis@akan> Content-Language: en-US X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200825_132559_820000_A81A5469 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.41 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Tero Kristo , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 8/25/20 5:42 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > 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). OK, posted a v2 [1] with the cleanup first. It does create a dependency on the pending ABI 3.0 PR. regards Suman [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11736095/ _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel