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=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 F2542C433E1 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 22:00:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD752071E for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 22:00:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="uCBpkaiP" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726365AbgHXWAz (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 18:00:55 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:38884 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726090AbgHXWAy (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 18:00:54 -0400 Received: from lelv0265.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.224]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07OM0qU0056306; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:00:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1598306452; bh=EJV8b059uRnf89mOkjpelozeKroe9MLHdFqFFHqEJTk=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=uCBpkaiPhclWwEWmgH/PBXObzMk88gjFIepIcQO+8/pnjziKqWc/7uJXJ9Nko9D3a LEJ5MxSWx/eN/khxUfFDMQQt/llSHZF2wSuvGvDACBr/JlaK72dz1G86ru+5KUJOjV KBPNKGn6kelX/9J5zXl8XDtIErilW8l0dVa14bIU= Received: from DLEE101.ent.ti.com (dlee101.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.31]) by lelv0265.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07OM0qi8076967 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:00:52 -0500 Received: from DLEE113.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.24) by DLEE101.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:00:51 -0500 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DLEE113.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.24) 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; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:00:51 -0500 Received: from [10.250.32.171] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07OM0pGN015456; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:00:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j721e-common-proc-board: Add mailboxes to C66x DSPs To: Nishanth Menon CC: Tero Kristo , , 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> From: Suman Anna Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:00:51 -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: <20200820190333.4ga5uob5tgsgwego@akan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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? regards Suman