Re: [PATCH] dt-binding: remoteproc: Document generic properties
From: Rob Herring
Date: Thu Sep 08 2016 - 12:50:43 EST
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.
> 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