Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: cache: qcom,llcc: Document Eliza LLCC block

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 07/05/2026 12:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 5/6/26 2:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 06/05/2026 12:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 5/6/26 11:56 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> +    then:
>>>>>>> +      properties:
>>>>>>> +        reg:
>>>>>>> +          items:
>>>>>>> +            - description: LLCC0 base register region
>>>>>>> +            - description: LLCC2 base register region
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LLCC1?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately not
>>>>
>>>> Then let's just skip the names, because it will cause unnecessary
>>>> confusion when name is llcc1 (since it is the NEXT entry) but it points
>>>> to block called LLCC2 in the manual.
>>>
>>> I don't think skipping the names is a good idea, especially since if
>>> we keep them, we could teach the driver what channel the region actually
>>> corresponds to
>>
>> You still can do it, because indices are fixed. Names are only helper
>> and makes that easier.
>>
>> The problem looks to me purely doc-related, because this is logically
>> second channel, so LLCC1, just like qcom,sc7280-llcc or
>> qcom,sdm670-llcc. Does naming it as third channel (LLCC2) is relevant
>> for programming interface? Imagine driver taking LLCCx and using the 'x'
>> as offset?
>>
>> I tried to find something in HPG but no luck.
> 
> On recent platforms, channels 0/2 and 1/3 are paired, perhaps that's
> where it comes from

Yes and since there is no 1 and 3, what are the pairs here? No pairs.
It's only first (LLCC0) and second (LLCC1), even though the docs call it
differently.

However as Abel suggested better to stay consistent with the manual, so
I guess LLCC2 makes more sense.

Best regards,
Krzysztof