Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: cache: qcom,llcc: Document Eliza LLCC block

[Abel Vesa]

On 26-05-07 12:47:25, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 5/6/26 2:15 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 06/05/2026 12:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 5/6/26 11:56 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>>> +    then:
> >>>>>> +      properties:
> >>>>>> +        reg:
> >>>>>> +          items:
> >>>>>> +            - description: LLCC0 base register region
> >>>>>> +            - description: LLCC2 base register region
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LLCC1?
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately not
> >>>
> >>> Then let's just skip the names, because it will cause unnecessary
> >>> confusion when name is llcc1 (since it is the NEXT entry) but it points
> >>> to block called LLCC2 in the manual.
> >>
> >> I don't think skipping the names is a good idea, especially since if
> >> we keep them, we could teach the driver what channel the region actually
> >> corresponds to
> > 
> > You still can do it, because indices are fixed. Names are only helper
> > and makes that easier.
> > 
> > The problem looks to me purely doc-related, because this is logically
> > second channel, so LLCC1, just like qcom,sc7280-llcc or
> > qcom,sdm670-llcc. Does naming it as third channel (LLCC2) is relevant
> > for programming interface? Imagine driver taking LLCCx and using the 'x'
> > as offset?
> > 
> > I tried to find something in HPG but no luck.
> 
> On recent platforms, channels 0/2 and 1/3 are paired, perhaps that's
> where it comes from

So what is the suggestion here? Do we keep 0 and 2 ? Or should I rename
LLCC2 to LLCC1 ?