Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add nodes to boot WPSS

[Sibi Sankar]

On 2021-03-24 12:19, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> On 2021-03-24 03:36, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'll discuss the ask with the modem fw team and
> get back.

Sorry for the delayed response. Looks
like it's something Qualcomm wouldn't
want to do mid-project since a number
of the fw images are re-used across
platforms. But this is something that
will be taken up on newer SoCs.

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.