On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla...
<srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for your review comments,
On 18/02/18 23:04, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:13:23AM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
Thanks for the review,
On 13/02/18 23:12, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:58:13PM +0000, srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
This patch add dt bindings for Qualcomm APR (Asynchronous Packet
Router)
bus driver. This bus is used for communicating with DSP which provides
audio and various other services to cpu.
Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,apr.txt | 83
++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 83 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,apr.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,apr.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,apr.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..1b95fbfed348
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,apr.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+Qualcomm APR (Asynchronous Packet Router) binding
+
+This binding describes the Qualcomm APR. APR is a IPC protocol for
+communication between Application processor and QDSP. APR is mainly
+used for audio/voice services on the QDSP.
+
Sorry for not being clear, so the services like AFE, ASM, ADM have different version numbers for a given SoC/firmware.Yep, I will fix it in next version.
It's not a good design generally to mix different types of nodes at one
level.
I agree, may be I can split the services and devices into different
subnodes
like below, which should avoid mixing different types of nodes.
Does this sound good to you?
Seems your original example wasn't so complete...
It might not vary for a given SoC, but It does vary across the SoCs.
I don't see why you need all these nodes in the first place. For a
single SoC, how much does all this vary?
Also the versions of each service are independent to each other.
Not sure I follow the last statement. Meaning firmware updates change
the services?
I don't see any versioning of services here.
So we will have 2 cell values, one representing the apr service and other the dai.
apr {
compatible = "qcom,apr-v2";
qcom,smd-channels = "apr_audio_svc";
qcom,apr-dest-domain-id = <APR_DOMAIN_ADSP>;
apr-services {
q6core {
qcom,apr-svc-name = "CORE";
qcom,apr-svc-id = <APR_SVC_ADSP_CORE>;
compatible = "qcom,q6core";
};
q6afe: q6afe {
compatible = "qcom,q6afe";
qcom,apr-svc-name = "AFE";
qcom,apr-svc-id = <APR_SVC_AFE>;
#sound-dai-cells = <1>;
};
q6asm: q6asm {
compatible = "qcom,q6asm";
qcom,apr-svc-name = "ASM";
qcom,apr-svc-id = <APR_SVC_ASM>;
#sound-dai-cells = <1>;
};
q6adm: q6adm {
compatible = "qcom,q6adm";
qcom,apr-svc-name = "ADM";
qcom,apr-svc-id = <APR_SVC_ADM>;
#sound-dai-cells = <0>;
};
All these DAI nodes could be a single node and the cell value be the
svc-id?
Yes, I will give that a go.No, DAI's here are both backends and frontends, and some of the services
like core, USM are not DAI's
Are you also saying that we should have a single driver entity for all these
services?
DT nodes do not equate driver entities. A driver can instantiate other drivers.
Am I saying a single DT node for this? Yes, perhaps.