From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-binding: remoteproc: Document generic properties Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:50:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20160908165032.GA9526@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1470850622-29816-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> <20160812183448.GA32059@rob-hp-laptop> <20160812224223.GJ26240@tuxbot> <46d4d351-336c-6d4f-b1b0-243cf3c5d68b@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46d4d351-336c-6d4f-b1b0-243cf3c5d68b-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Suman Anna Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Mark Rutland , Ohad Ben-Cohen , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-remoteproc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:45:45PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote: > On 08/12/2016 05:42 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Fri 12 Aug 11:34 PDT 2016, Rob Herring wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:37:02AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >>> This documents the generic properties "rprocs" and "rproc-names", used > >>> for consumer drivers to reference a remoteproc node. > >> > >> How do you intend to use this? I wonder if it would not be better to > >> expose a remote proc with existing bindings for a particular purpose > >> (e.g. clocks, resets, etc.) rather than a generic connection. The client > >> side would have to have specific knowledge as to what functions the > >> remote proc provides. > >> > > > > The remoteproc node represents the mechanism and resources needed to > > control the life cycle a co-processor, e.g. loading, booting, shutting > > gown a video encoder/decoder. > > > > The proposed reference allows a separate thingie to assert control of > > the life cycle of that co-processor. > > > > > > I acknowledge that in some cases there is a fine line between what is > > the life cycle management and what is the actual functionality > > implemented by that remote processor. But as the remoteproc mechanism is > > reusable between various use cases I think it makes sense to not describe > > them as one unit. > > What's the current state of this patch, not officially acked yet right? Bjorn and I have discussed some, but probably needs more discussion. This binding alone is simple enough, but I want to understand better how it will be used and digesting all the QCom h/w is not simple. > While we are at this, can we agree upon an alias stem name as well, we > can stick to "rproc". Otherwise, I can submit an incremental patch on > top of this along with the code that adds an API to retrieve it for > client users. Any alias for this will be NAKed. My position on aliases is well documented. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html