From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: georgi.djakov@linaro.org (Georgi Djakov) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 20:05:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v9 2/8] dt-bindings: Introduce interconnect binding In-Reply-To: References: <20180831140151.13972-1-georgi.djakov@linaro.org> <20180831140151.13972-3-georgi.djakov@linaro.org> <20180925180215.GA12435@bogus> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Rob, On 9/26/18 17:42, Georgi Djakov wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Thanks for the comments! > > On 09/25/2018 09:02 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 05:01:45PM +0300, Georgi Djakov wrote: >>> This binding is intended to represent the relations between the interconnect >>> controllers (providers) and consumer device nodes. It will allow creating links >>> between consumers and interconnect paths (exposed by interconnect providers). >> >> As I mentioned in person, I want to see other SoC families using this >> before accepting. They don't have to be ready for upstream, but WIP >> patches or even just a "yes, this works for us and we're going to use >> this binding on X". Patches for the iMX7ULP platform are already available [1]. Thanks Alexandre Bailon! The interconnect API seems to be also a good fit for Nvidia SoCs. There is an ongoing discussion about implementing an interconnect provider driver for Tegra [2]. Thanks Thierry and Krishna! In addition of the above, i also checked privately with a few other SoC maintainers and made them aware of these patches. Some are not ready for upstream yet, but the feedback was positive and i expect more SoCs to make use of this in the future. BR, Georgi [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/17/368 [2] https://marc.info/?t=154056181900001&r=1&w=2 > Other than the 3 Qualcomm SoCs (msm8916, msm8996, sdm845) that are > currently using this binding, there is ongoing work from at least two > other vendors that would be using this same binding. I will check on > what is their progress so far. > >> Also, I think the QCom GPU use of this should be fully sorted out. Or >> more generically how this fits into OPP binding which seems to be never >> ending extended... > > I see this as a further step. It could be OPP binding which include > bandwidth values or some separate DT property. Jordan has already > proposed something, do you have any initial comments on that? > > BR, > Georgi >