Re: [PATCH V2 01/13] dt-bindings: remoteproc: qcom: Add support for multipd model

[Manikanta Mylavarapu]

On 6/24/2023 12:49 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/06/2023 13:39, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote:
> > > > on number of wcss radios connected on that board and only one instance
> > > > of 'qcom,ipq5018-q6-mpd'.
> > >
> > > I don't understand why the user protection domains need a specific
> > > compatible. Why do they need compatible at all?
> > >
> > > Not mentioning that amount of your domains on Q6 is actually fixed per
> > > SoC and probably should not be in DT at all.
> >     root domain is fixed per soc (One Q6 DSP, one per soc)
> >     user domain(s) are variable (based on number of wcss radios attached)
> >
> >     The sequence to initialize, bring up, tear down the Q6 and wcss radios
> >     are completely different. So in order to differentiate them, we will
> >     need different compatibles. So this is a new rproc driver/architecture
> >     which has a parent/child topology (Q6 DSP -> Master/parent controls
> >     the WCSS (child)).
>
> I understand you need different properties, but I don't see yet the
> benefit of creating here artificial compatibles. Look at your ipq9574
> DTSI change - it does not use even ipq9574 compatibles for 66% of its
> children.
>
> Maybe you should have there just property describing type of device or
> bringup?

	Yeah i got your point. Indeed the requirement here is to
	have device specific compatibles, so will have just two
	compatible one for Q6-MPD and another for WCSS-MPD device's


	"qcom,q6-mpd" --> For Q6-MPD device
	"qcom,wcss-mpd" --> For WCSS-MPD device

	Is this approach fine ?

> Given SoC cannot come with different amount of children (PD) and
> different amount of radios. You even fix the firmware name, so
> boards/customers cannot use anything else. It's fixed and the only
> variable element here is disabling some of the blocks per board, if they
> do not have physical interface (e.g. radio).
>
> You even hard-code the number of PD by using "pd-[123]", without unit
> address, so you do not expect it will grow.
>
> Unless you want to say that these are devices? But your binding does not
> really suggest it...
>
>
> 	Yes, as i mentioned above the requirement is to have device
	specific bindings. We will remove "PD-X" from soc dtsi and
	add it in board dts file.

	So soc dts would have "Q6-MPD" master node & board dts have
	"WCSS-MPD" child nodes based on number of radio's connected
	on board.

	Is this fine ?

Thanks & Regards,
Manikanta.