On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 12:43:58PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote:
Introduce compatible "qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem" for SCMI smc/hvcCan it be simply "qcom,scmi-smc" for 2 reasons ?
transport channel for Qualcomm virtual platforms.
The compatible mandates a shared memory channel.
Signed-off-by: Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
index 8d54ea768d38..4090240f45b1 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
@@ -45,6 +45,9 @@ properties:
- description: SCMI compliant firmware with OP-TEE transport
items:
- const: linaro,scmi-optee
+ - description: SCMI compliant firmware with Qualcomm hvc/shmem transport
+ items:
+ - const: qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem
1. We don't support SMC/HVC without shmem, so what is your argument to add
'-shmem' in the compatible here ?
2. The exact conduit(SMC/HVC) used is detected runtime, so I prefer to keep
'-smc' instead of '-hvc' in the compatible just to avoid giving an illusion
that HVC is the conduit chosen here based on the compatible. It can be true
for other reason but I don't want to mislead here by using HVC.
interrupts:
description:
@@ -320,6 +323,15 @@ allOf:
required:
- linaro,optee-channel-id
+ - if:
+ properties:
+ compatible:
+ contains:
+ const: qcom,scmi-hvc-shmem
+ then:
+ required:
+ - shmem
+
examples:
- |
firmware {
--
2.17.1