RE: [PATCH] dt-bindings: imx: update scu resource id headfile

From: Aisheng Dong
Date: Wed Feb 20 2019 - 04:50:03 EST

> From: Marco Felsch [mailto:m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 4:17 PM
> On 19-02-20 03:38, Aisheng Dong wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > I don't like droping some ID's (e.g. IMX_SC_R_DC_0_CAPTURE0) by
> > > > mark them as unused or even worse give them a other meaning. IMHO
> > > > the scu-api should be stable since day 1 and the ID's should only be
> extended.
> > > > Marking ID's as deprecated is much better than moving them around.
> > >
> > > I agree the SCU APIs should be stable since day 1 and the ID should
> > > ONLY be extended, but that is the best cases, the reality is, there
> > > are different SoCs/Revision, some revisions may remove the resources
> > > ID defined in pre-coded SCU firmware, like the
> > > IMX_SC_R_DC_0_CAPTURE0 etc., so SCU APIs removes them after real
> > > silicon arrived, now latest SCU firmware marks them as UNUSED, they
> > > could be replaced by some other new resources in later new SoC, I am
> > > NOT sure, but if it happens, this resource ID table should be
> > > updated anyway, leaving the out-of-date resource ID table there will have
> issues, since it is NOT sync with SCU firmware.
> > >
> > > So how to resolve such issue? We hope the SCU firmware should be
> > > stable since day 1, but the truth is NOT, could be still some
> > > updates but NOT very often. And I believe the updates will NOT break old
> kernel version.
> Hi Anson,
> Please don't mix the dt-bindings and the kernel related stuff.
> Unfortunately the bindings are within the kernel repo which in fact is great for
> us kernel developer but the bindings are also used in other projects such as
> barebox or other kernels (don't know the BSD guys). So you can't ensure that
> your change will break something. Please keep that in mind.
> IMHO solving that issue should be done by the scu firmware. I tought the scu is
> a cortex-m4 with a bunch of embedded flash and ram (I don't know that much
> about the scu since it is closed/black-boxed). Why do you don't use a
> translation table within the scu? As I said earlier I don't like the redefinition of
> ID's since they are now part of the dt-bindings.
> The bindings can store up to 32bit values which is a large number ;) IMHO
> wasting some ID's in favour of stability is a better solution.

As far as I know, those remove resource IDs are pre-defined and has never been used
and won't be used anymore by SC firmware. (Anson can double check it)
So I think it's safe to remove them or mark them as deprecated.

Personally I may prefer to remove them as they never worked to avoid confusing,
especially at this early stage for mx8.

Dong Aisheng