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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11ECECDD543 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:36:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=H1KtpG86ea0ip3jnHITKET17q8Np+lllQbKm5OLld4g=; b=TogIemQnhAyfOJ /uPe2nSNt3Mj4RJjsuLYOkmqAA6JsN0UqEIsdAFROTsG+XxMfOzEeif/nCTI/q3TewRoV2ppQ1ttC ORvDw2weM//ILZV2LbVlK3nVDBDDnnU56HMyrog6gdYT8V0ua/oXq3hkOVqs/nh4bdF/9kVf0O0nA c9sayybg/mOCOuEjwEooEnUd4QpC6Z8mLD/7RwbEfY8FW2qzQFxmTSV3/SdkJPpT/94yr292AeBF9 emZnsfOxpeUk7nNJQ75W0NYfEoAdgY245aKnu8VIhZJiDindPpPIHP7ITw1TY5navqdQRV4EzDnUn 880wSPQeVcJDIA2LhqBA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sqwip-00000008Xsb-1jFb; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:36:03 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sqwim-00000008Xrv-22RJ for linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:36:02 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7ABC5C589B; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:35:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14FDFC4CEC2; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:35:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1726673759; bh=t6/c5gLj5Sr5S19QSIiY4LV1QuDRPt2TAIfzZnvEPL0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Sb1eBrFgQG+VGo4qvB3wbm8AsE/+UXeCFh2UwONZyzvBE034FqXsJKUcm5oWvdAYc OsPjknNg2Zq9regd9voTw8vbPTwI9/XIebsla9aKJVlE4B0t2q42T0C/CSWnk6Ktee 81fXj7YOLONzahwPJg7911QqFFd2NPRQFV2RJTs8LAVAbM+9zPEpoL5DxJ60aIrwiM OedF3BhOGnapShKgYlav/hBKYLfdylDomJEhYg2LmZ9C55rCoNXNKOCcYQdRv4jkqc SruDPZEsKKDkLqWnJxSr0r0rf8fWPlnz0mmTbxrlae18oHKsXrhnw6P3hVs18nbBjP 98vAHay3S0+1w== Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:35:58 -0500 From: Rob Herring To: Conor Dooley Cc: Samuel Holland , Valentina Fernandez , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, peterlin@andestech.com, dminus@andestech.com, ycliang@andestech.com, jassisinghbrar@gmail.com, krzk+dt@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, conor.dooley@microchip.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding for Microchip IPC mailbox driver Message-ID: <20240918153558.GA1567736-robh@kernel.org> References: <20240912170025.455167-1-valentina.fernandezalanis@microchip.com> <20240912170025.455167-3-valentina.fernandezalanis@microchip.com> <20240916-palpable-flock-7217424ed8db@spud> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240916-palpable-flock-7217424ed8db@spud> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240918_083600_637457_913FC5DB X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 27.76 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 05:31:36PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 04:23:44PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote: > > Hi Valentina, > > > > On 2024-09-12 12:00 PM, Valentina Fernandez wrote: > > > Add a dt-binding for the Microchip Inter-Processor Communication (IPC) > > > mailbox controller. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Valentina Fernandez > > > --- > > > .../bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml | 115 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 115 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..dc2cbd5eb28f > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > +--- > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mailbox/microchip,sbi-ipc.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: Microchip Inter-processor communication (IPC) mailbox controller > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - Valentina Fernandez > > > + > > > +description: > > > + The Microchip Inter-processor Communication (IPC) facilitates > > > + message passing between processors using an interrupt signaling > > > + mechanism. > > > + This SBI interface is compatible with the Mi-V Inter-hart > > > + Communication (IHC) IP. > > > + The microchip,sbi-ipc compatible string is inteded for use by software > > > + running in supervisor privileged mode (s-mode). The SoC-specific > > > + compatibles are inteded for use by the SBI implementation in machine > > > + mode (m-mode). > > > > There is a lot of conditional logic in this binding for how small it is. Would > > it make sense to split this into two separate bindings? For example, with the > > current binding microchip,ihc-chan-disabled-mask is allowed for the SBI > > interface, but doesn't look like it belongs there. > > I dunno. Part of me says that because this is two compatibles for the > same piece of hardware (the choice depending on which programming model > you use) they should be documented together. The other part of me is of > the opinion that they effectively describe different things, given one > describes the hardware and the other describes a firmware interface that > may have any sort of hardware backing it. > > I suppose it's more of a problem for "us" (that being me/Rob/Krzysztof) > than for Valentina, and how to handle firmware interfaces to hardware > like this is one of the topics that's planned for Krzysztof's devicetree > BoF session at LPC. If how the client interacts with the device is fundamentally different, then I think different compatibles is fine. Rob _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv