Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: cache: qcom,llcc: Document Eliza LLCC block

[Abel Vesa]

On 26-05-06 14:15:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 06/05/2026 12:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 5/6/26 11:56 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>> +    then:
> >>>>> +      properties:
> >>>>> +        reg:
> >>>>> +          items:
> >>>>> +            - description: LLCC0 base register region
> >>>>> +            - description: LLCC2 base register region
> >>>>
> >>>> LLCC1?
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately not
> >>
> >> Then let's just skip the names, because it will cause unnecessary
> >> confusion when name is llcc1 (since it is the NEXT entry) but it points
> >> to block called LLCC2 in the manual.
> > 
> > I don't think skipping the names is a good idea, especially since if
> > we keep them, we could teach the driver what channel the region actually
> > corresponds to
> 
> You still can do it, because indices are fixed. Names are only helper
> and makes that easier.
> 
> The problem looks to me purely doc-related, because this is logically
> second channel, so LLCC1, just like qcom,sc7280-llcc or
> qcom,sdm670-llcc. Does naming it as third channel (LLCC2) is relevant
> for programming interface? Imagine driver taking LLCCx and using the 'x'
> as offset?

I think it creats confusion for someone else who will consult the
internal doc and see the difference in naming.