Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-03-13 20:16:39)
On Sat 13 Mar 15:46 CST 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-03-08 21:51:51)
> > Add miscellaneous nodes to boot the Wireless Processor Subsystem on
>
> Maybe add (WPSS) after the name so we know they're related.
>
> > SC7280 SoCs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=438217
> > Depends on ipcc dt node enablement from ^^
> >
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 143 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> > index 18637c369c1d..4f03c468df51 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> > @@ -244,12 +251,131 @@
> > reg = <0 0x80000000 0 0>;
> > };
> >
> > + tcsr_mutex: hwlock {
> > + compatible = "qcom,tcsr-mutex";
> > + syscon = <&tcsr_mutex_regs 0 0x1000>;
> > + #hwlock-cells = <1>;
> > + };
>
> Is this node in the right place? I think the node above it is 'memory'?
> In which case 'hwlock' comes before 'memory' alphabetically.
>
Thanks for spotting this, as it's no longer acceptable to have a
standalone "syscon" node I was asked to rewrite the binding for this a
few months ago. So the tcsr_mutex should now be represented with a reg
under /soc.
Oh nice, I wasn't aware.
> > + #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> > + };
> > + };
> > +
> > + smp2p-mpss {
> > + compatible = "qcom,smp2p";
> > + qcom,smem = <435>, <428>;
> > + interrupts-extended = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS
> > + IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P
> > + IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> > + mboxes = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS
> > + IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P>;
> > +
> > + qcom,local-pid = <0>;
> > + qcom,remote-pid = <1>;
> > +
> > + modem_smp2p_out: master-kernel {
> > + qcom,entry-name = "master-kernel";
> > + #qcom,smem-state-cells = <1>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + modem_smp2p_in: slave-kernel {
> > + qcom,entry-name = "slave-kernel";
>
> Do these names need to have 'master' and 'slave' in them? We're trying
> to avoid these terms. See Documentation/process/coding-style.rst Section
> 4 naming.
>
They need to match the naming in the firmware, but I would welcome a
future change to something in line with the coding style and simply more
descriptive.
Sibi can this be done? I think it's still pretty early days for the
firmware so hopefully the terms can be replaced with something
different.