Re: [PATCH v2 05/14] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add RSC and PDC devices

Stephen Boyd
2021-03-23T07:08:02Z

Quoting Maulik Shah (2021-03-07 21:21:04)
> Hi,
>
> On 3/5/2021 11:12 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> >
> > On 3/4/2021 5:34 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2021-03-03 04:17:49)
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> >>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> >>> index 4a56d9c..21c2399 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> >>> @@ -30,6 +31,18 @@
> >>>                  };
> >>>          };
> >>>   +       reserved_memory: reserved-memory {
> >>
> >> Do we plan to use this label at any point? I'd prefer we remove this
> >> until it becomes useful.
> >
> > sure, i'll drop it
> >
> >>
> >>> +               #address-cells = <2>;
> >>> +               #size-cells = <2>;
> >>> +               ranges;
> >>> +
> >>> +               aop_cmd_db_mem: memory@80860000 {
> >>> +                       reg = <0x0 0x80860000 0x0 0x20000>;
> >>> +                       compatible = "qcom,cmd-db";
> >>> +                       no-map;
> >>> +               };
> >>> +       };
> >>> +
> >>>          cpus {
> >>>                  #address-cells = <2>;
> >>>                  #size-cells = <0>;
> >>> @@ -203,6 +229,7 @@
> >>>                          interrupt-controller;
> >>>                          #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> >>>                          gpio-ranges = <&tlmm 0 0 175>;
> >>> +                       wakeup-parent = <&pdc>;
> >>>                            qup_uart5_default: qup-uart5-default {
> >>>                                  pins = "gpio46", "gpio47";
> >>> @@ -287,6 +314,23 @@
> >>>                                  status = "disabled";
> >>>                          };
> >>>                  };
> >>> +
> >>> +               apps_rsc: rsc@18200000 {
> >>
> >> Any better name than 'rsc'? Maybe 'power-controller'?
> >
> > hmm, Maulik, any thoughts? This would perhaps need the bindings docs
> > to be updated as well (and maybe the existing platform DTs using rsc too)
>
> I think we should be good with rsc (resource-state-coordinator). RSC
> itself don't do any resource power management.
>

Maybe 'mailbox' then? Or 'remoteproc'? I am not "good" with rsc as it
isn't part of the standardized nodes names per the DT spec.