Re: [PATCH 02/53] dt-bindings: interconnect: qcom,bcm-voter: Add qcom,bcm-voter-idx

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 15/07/2023 17:09, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 12.07.2023 22:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 14:18, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> In order to (at least partially) untangle the global BCM voter lookup
>>> (as again, they are shared throughout the entire system and not bound to
>>> individual buses/providers), introduce a new required property to assign
>>> a unique identifier to each BCM voter.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,bcm-voter.yaml       | 10 ++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,bcm-voter.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,bcm-voter.yaml
>>> index eec987640b37..09321c1918bf 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,bcm-voter.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,bcm-voter.yaml
>>> @@ -38,8 +38,14 @@ properties:
>>>  
>>>      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>>>  
>>> +  qcom,bcm-voter-idx:
>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
>>> +    description:
>>> +      A globally unique predefined discrimnator, identifying each BCM voter.
>>
>> s/each/this/ ?
> Right, this makes more sense
> 
>> If I understand correctly, there might be more than one instance. The
>> problem is that I cannot find such case in upstream sources.
> I don't think there can be more than one per RSC.
> 
> SM8550 splits some RSCs into "channels" and these channels have their
> individual voters, however they would still be attached to these
> channel subnodes/subdevices and no, we don't support that yet.

Then shouldn't this be one number, not an array?

> 
>>
>>
>>> +
>>>  required:
>>>    - compatible
>>> +  - qcom,bcm-voter-idx
>>
>> This should not be really required, because it affects the ABI.
> Hm.. can I deprecate lack of it somehow?

In general: no. Anyway, it depends how much you need it. Breaking ABI
might be justified, but I just did not get such need from the commit
msg. Your commit msg looks to me closer to a cleanup.

Best regards,
Krzysztof