Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: interconnect: Add rpmh virt devices

[Melody Olvera]

On 11/28/2022 3:08 PM, Melody Olvera wrote:
>
> On 11/28/2022 9:25 AM, Melody Olvera wrote:
>> On 11/24/2022 2:30 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2022 18:57, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>>>>> +  - Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> +  - Odelu Kukatla <quic_okukatla@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +description: |
>>>>>>>> +   RPMh interconnect providers support system bandwidth requirements through
>>>>>>>> +   RPMh hardware accelerators known as Bus Clock Manager (BCM). The provider is
>>>>>>>> +   able to communicate with the BCM through the Resource State Coordinator (RSC)
>>>>>>>> +   associated with each execution environment. Provider nodes must point to at
>>>>>>>> +   least one RPMh device child node pertaining to their RSC and each provider
>>>>>>>> +   can map to multiple RPMh resources. Virtual interconnect providers are not
>>>>>>>> +   controlled by AP and do not support QoS; they should not have associated
>>>>>>>> +   register regions.
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +allOf:
>>>>>>>> +  - $ref: qcom,rpmh-common.yaml#
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>>>>> +    enum:
>>>>>>>> +      - qcom,qdu1000-clk-virt
>>>>>>>> +      - qcom,qdu1000-mc-virt
>>>>>>>> +      - qcom,sm8450-clk-virt
>>>>>>>> +      - qcom,sm8450-mc-virt
>>>>>>> You should also move qcom,sdx65-mc-virt, qcom,sc8280xp-mc-virt,
>>>>>>> qcom,sc8280xp-clk-virt and more.
>>>>>> Ok. I wasn't sure since some of these entries don't seem to conform to
>>>>>> these bindings, even though it seems they should.
>>>>> I have impression that devices I listed conform to these bindings, this
>>>>> is why I listed them. But if you are sure that they do not, then they
>>>>> should not be moved.
>>>> You're correct; those you listed do conform to the new bindings and should be moved.
>>>> I also caught qcom,sc7280-clk-virt which needs to be moved. I'll add to the new bindings.
>>> Actually let's wait a bit with this. For SM8550 we had an idea to move
>>> interconnect to their own bindings file, because they will grow a bit
>>> with allOf:if:then clauses.
>>>
>>> Maybe SM8450 and QDU1000 should also go to their own files which will
>>> describe all their interconnects (the virt and the ones requiring clocks)?
>>>
>>> Apologies for bringing it late for your patches, but SM8550 is also
>>> happening right now, so new things pop-up :)
>> Yeah no worries. I can definitely make this change; if this is how we want to do
>> things going forward I'm happy to oblige.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Melody
> I think though for these PS, I'll stick to doing w QDU1000. So I'll have a file qcom,qdu1000-rpmh.yaml
> and qcom,qdu1000-rpmh-virt.yaml
>
> Thanks,
> Melody

Nevermind; looks like SM8550 is keeping all in one file, so I'll keep all in one file.

>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>