From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suman Anna Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-binding: remoteproc: Document generic properties Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 13:32:17 -0500 Message-ID: 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> <20160908165032.GA9526@rob-hp-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160908165032.GA9526@rob-hp-laptop> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Rob Herring 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 Hi Rob, On 09/08/2016 11:50 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > 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. OK, thanks. The binding has no bearing on Qcom h/w though. > >> 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. Hmm, I don't have the complete background/history on your stance. I do have a need for identifying an exact remoteproc instance. How do you propose I do that without aliases, and without adding a non-hw related property to the DTS node? Like for example, we have 8 identical DSPs on Keystone 2 Hawking SoCs, and I need to construct a firmware name based on the instance id, and I cannot do this based on probe order. regards Suman -- 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