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=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 ED3B1C4727C for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:47:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A637D20888 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:47:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1600804078; bh=FOILoErzO/eovrAH2jJlxtNWqNgwjfhVtHHjYW4Lqso=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=cCa/JWi5d56PXIgpq9wRW3U2ENpZreiSNFnSQUr7mxqBY8rpX+CfvNeaIBWv4jmMf APmPacbSghQv9PYJROyQfKzZ9ZifVJtvpY4wttJUThaDmPboFumKcNyxF4yGMalH1L V9DU4Lny58392U+t13GV3pvBnRZCfkU+tU82POro= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726731AbgIVTr5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:47:57 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f66.google.com ([209.85.166.66]:41581 "EHLO mail-io1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726448AbgIVTr4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:47:56 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f66.google.com with SMTP id z13so21016147iom.8; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:47:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ri/bVbFH3r5EY2Mz3MO9WVs+h7y66U0Z5iJapj7IiXI=; b=g8xg6UBbbXTYXUgmTtu9o/VA5uX9Ohle6o6ESnvldeFafnPIhO478KH3RnIaPYKSrw JxlA5cYLhD69/gk8CJJP8ZPUbZlAmHIv8vpABJwINa5YwJnG/L+UTRC+wsalDB0giyYq h0J+Y0udVCF+JZOiO2I1I2roNcTcR9w1rpV7rmHONq86pBeswMdn7N5mK9mKBxbVMQlS /V7fI3FDStdJQKXCCLF2jpctGMGYNsGoIDkdDxLMpl21GGrjd2VE1DP/Ug7RKbtdaBcU /QK7mKdVFMnAQNmtNx/9M5dvyihxPxHE6oVuAlLHF2pqakz5puIJ+ERAyQiCakyDaxM7 AuiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530s709nbF+X/phETmeaKh0aCR92zlV2Dx+XS0mFIlQSnEBsXq3N BTCtTVHbmkQU6LrNXYNZYg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy3iTl88OD21S0eMhHBXW4ApuZoC8dsFK4Kp7SeKRHofvxUkXXeCMEkfhADIYuzvs2vzNHVgA== X-Received: by 2002:a02:b199:: with SMTP id t25mr5313825jah.124.1600804076032; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps15 ([64.188.179.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h2sm7832335ioj.5.2020.09.22.12.47.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (nullmailer pid 3121917 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:47:53 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:47:53 -0600 From: Rob Herring To: Suman Anna Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Mathieu Poirier , Lokesh Vutla , linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] TI K3 R5F remoteproc support Message-ID: <20200922194753.GA3105316@bogus> References: <20200908174556.21277-1-s-anna@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200908174556.21277-1-s-anna@ti.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 12:45:52PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote: > Hi All, > > The following is v4 of the TI K3 R5F remoteproc driver series supporting all > the R5F processor clusters/subsystems on TI AM65x and J721E SoCs. Please > see the v1 cover-letter [1] for the features supported on these R5F processors. > > This series is a rebased version on top of the latest v5.9-rc baseline and > includes very minor fixes w.r.t v3. The previous K3 DSP dependencies are now > available in mainline kernel. Please see the individual patches for the delta > differences (Only patches 1 and 2 updated). > > Bjorn, > This series is only waiting on bindings ack and the conclusion on the bindings > discussion from v2 [4] on which I haven't seen any forward progress on this > despite all the clarifications. I do not expect any changes even w.r.t System DT, > and we can't really have a common binding between TI and Xilinx R5Fs. Why not? I'm pretty sure lockstep or not is a thing for both and TCMs seem to be a common thing. And I don't really think System DT will not impact it. Though it's not well enough defined to say either way IMO. But if Bjorn wants to take this, fine. I'm not acking it though nor worrying about it for any compatibility with system DT. Rob