From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B7AC433DF for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00F432076A for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="HckpDmY7"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=xilinx.onmicrosoft.com header.i=@xilinx.onmicrosoft.com header.b="XndmATdh" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 00F432076A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xilinx.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=NuuBucXvANtfdamnbY4c/gkEuf5vOvPyoR6/2JPbOOw=; b=HckpDmY71qGjDXUJt/pbLJ8bY ThEJQJHuxhB8S8YZoVx8LBRADuoFRaD1/6AEcH8Nyhd1Wop6/iZw6Ame3K5euiN53kJh3VQTrgB5E lxzNM/3m6updL8d0WzPuXpZYwij1XHFmE0ng7x9c18S03o3luaog7IZz3AXlp4yJkS62Gg2yG7Ezj jpgev2AdYI5aYEXmmCIP9nLXmr4JUhqjG/R3g/mWYc65eH19Q+WxO64YRWxdlI6ReWi63JHzi4Y4l I4tH+Z++QL4urATMnFaSl+LlWg9cGhEAYZIZfRW28stgL32Lm4X5c6MnyeqP7Cvtp3vnnbahU+ipE jPsjJsoHQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jtx35-0006lF-1y; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:42:59 +0000 Received: from mail-eopbgr750052.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.107.75.52] helo=NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jtx31-0006ji-BP for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:42:56 +0000 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=HeVfTYTvgTZxK4lCyWEZ6bZwRtkOeTFx/SFLkD/Ij97N8kh3571/twWylrMMjLjAjgvoRtMzrCTIGfpWWmGosl0+efEMJcZAET0UIsT3QwT0et4lv2cZqo1PO43Y1NWrrimHk0CUQgBctmN5Qk2E2fdFYCqX7HxEHzTwowcial1WyhXeHTMAhgfHxh+OgJ5RbpxD4I2MD5N9CiwXD3sEyfgYiy3aG7xzzwIr0FjAnZgezDNFoo+vM05VGDIGpVTRxyL7iH5EGbaqDsv1tiE9aS9T/FD6l0H7cZ42WhKEGU1bTeeZ0xqaaZzf4tF7ox6nlwexFOCno5pZevujj9J29w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=/7mZzv7Xl/KY/HtaYlkOQSAy9lO8krjgsxp4FLAY7sM=; b=YgLx5zC7Trz33FEAdb1DR2TOK6UC1VY2AuSXa1QOkabvT040Q/mtbLXWzHwGbeKuDHFCdwXppJR/ts9oYTCVVwk1ROdSBvHh1/xnFfJ6b+gjSlLP5xzS2MRbmDsLXlnmgo98IeCKbAkI+7wDhYGEa/zq36paUWMWFpwlKfqAWQ6MGGF+jYa3djWqR3i1av9hRMnVyig6Qhk/K31a0fa9nqiujbJg/zvxmnbVxdZMZch4fxN/7wjKVPOylFwlfiYvfbDp5nt+cydQfc8lLWlrYMuLBK+orxakqwWgicxygfDOrdZxBBdWgPu8vZvuY43kxn0X60eGUBtzaUQaAMShkw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 149.199.60.83) smtp.rcpttodomain=vger.kernel.org smtp.mailfrom=xilinx.com; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=xilinx.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xilinx.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-xilinx-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=/7mZzv7Xl/KY/HtaYlkOQSAy9lO8krjgsxp4FLAY7sM=; b=XndmATdh/2rnL9FJIp7oUA+mRU/1eq9YnGpAaYsq6gO1oNVk15Q84gOibSu9K6jGiO8BwqvWOi4qW1GFP0WOIrlxSp/l6D8d6jfdmKj4FL0z4Xrg+JuKHstnCngAKH3yt5NyTK3H24hZCCmL6DbSd9YXVeXxhL2dgEVgivvNHBA= Received: from MN2PR15CA0058.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:237::27) by DM5PR02MB3894.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:b1::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3174.20; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:42:50 +0000 Received: from BL2NAM02FT030.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:237:cafe::81) by MN2PR15CA0058.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:208:237::27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3174.21 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:42:50 +0000 X-MS-Exchange-Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 149.199.60.83) smtp.mailfrom=xilinx.com; vger.kernel.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;vger.kernel.org; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=xilinx.com; Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of xilinx.com designates 149.199.60.83 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=149.199.60.83; helo=xsj-pvapsmtpgw01; Received: from xsj-pvapsmtpgw01 (149.199.60.83) by BL2NAM02FT030.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.77.172) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.20.3174.21 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:42:50 +0000 Received: from [149.199.38.66] (port=52371 helo=xsj-pvapsmtp01) by xsj-pvapsmtpgw01 with esmtp (Exim 4.90) (envelope-from ) id 1jtx1N-0005rt-TG; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:41:13 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by xsj-pvapsmtp01 with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1jtx2w-0000B6-0G; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:42:50 -0700 Received: from xsj-pvapsmtp01 (smtp2.xilinx.com [149.199.38.66]) by xsj-smtp-dlp1.xlnx.xilinx.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 06AHgj2Z020161; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:42:45 -0700 Received: from [10.23.120.244] (helo=localhost) by xsj-pvapsmtp01 with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1jtx2q-0000AD-VH; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:42:45 -0700 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:42:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Stefano Stabellini X-X-Sender: sstabellini@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s To: Bjorn Andersson Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] dt-bindings: remoteproc: Add documentation for ZynqMP R5 rproc bindings In-Reply-To: <20200630022029.GC407764@builder.lan> Message-ID: References: <1587749770-15082-1-git-send-email-ben.levinsky@xilinx.com> <1587749770-15082-5-git-send-email-ben.levinsky@xilinx.com> <20200511221755.GA13585@bogus> <20200630022029.GC407764@builder.lan> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RCIS-Action: ALLOW X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-8.2.0.1013-23620.005 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes;Yes X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:149.199.60.83; CTRY:US; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:xsj-pvapsmtpgw01; PTR:unknown-60-83.xilinx.com; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(7916004)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(376002)(46966005)(478600001)(8676002)(26005)(5660300002)(44832011)(426003)(9786002)(336012)(186003)(2906002)(81166007)(82310400002)(356005)(9686003)(316002)(8936002)(33716001)(6916009)(83380400001)(70586007)(107886003)(54906003)(4326008)(70206006)(47076004)(82740400003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 0ec5cbec-15ab-4463-9daf-08d824f8aa82 X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: DM5PR02MB3894: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:10000; X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 3ISK0oNbGxf+sH2GYI/jLr/UkA+I/a5VQfyBQV8Wc24gvee5V8dBqPzI32t9/dL6HCZxnSFIGVoKrbRQKRN5IDqyuIdH8mYfT2HgjGy5NXdNy2V8F0f6cwkesebHNFz7BJlNfwunwuS1+0Qxbza+zmnlrEW8utTHZj0cpvRHqcGcPOFFuMqtL3LAhFJVONupNBw7CTt+BiBgypTaaKOLf++2aY8FKZB14tSVo1/6I84wyxGQaqoBiHDemDhHQfLPuBfeuZqmcLkhAm9XtDz1krYKtuncCqlW6nRqtJfwH/ai/JzTsN4F2GZ5s/dBhgBCALLyuIeTAv/WRSpV0hbxeXWVBud1omwXC8rPzGfU/eEVN6DOwsMUylMYnlyvrjGu+3Fz267LHVJYNgaBMY3zD/TO26QuwifYE3/vUYnJBYL6qMh+/nCulAR0sCL2N1Yil2mkS/oGULoWvY6shejj87yV+aL87I4tqgTLfTZLgjQ= X-OriginatorOrg: xilinx.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2020 17:42:50.3981 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0ec5cbec-15ab-4463-9daf-08d824f8aa82 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 657af505-d5df-48d0-8300-c31994686c5c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=657af505-d5df-48d0-8300-c31994686c5c; Ip=[149.199.60.83]; Helo=[xsj-pvapsmtpgw01] X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BL2NAM02FT030.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR02MB3894 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200710_134255_439667_67FA04F5 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 21.45 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "ohad@wizery.com" , Rob Herring , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Jolly Shah , Rajan Vaja , Ben Levinsky , Michal Simek , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , Stefano Stabellini , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Sorry for the late reply, a couple of conferences kept me busy. On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > However, given the fragmentation of the remoteproc bindings across > > multiple vendors (they are all different), I think it is a good idea for > > Linux, for System Device Tree, and in general to come up with simpler > > remoteproc bindings, more aligned between the vendors. If nothing else, > > it is going to make Lopper's development easier. > > > > In my view the big reason for the fragmentation between bindings is > because they all describe different hardware. There has been common > properties of remoteprocs discussed, but apart from the firmware-name > property I don't think we have agreed on any. Yeah, it is as you wrote. I meant to say that there might be room for improvement if the vendors come together and agree on a few more common properties. However, I don't have any concrete suggestions on this yet. Also, as mentioned, we can work with today's bindings just fine from a system device tree perspective. > Can you give some examples of how you will be able to describe the > hardware involved in powering/clocking resources surrounding your > remoteproc and the necessary resources in a "simpler and vendor neutral" > way that then can be further lopped(?) into something that Linux can use > to control any remoteproc? The description at the system device tree level looks a bit different, which might make the problem a bit easier, or at least different. Let me give you some context. Lopper (https://github.com/devicetree-org/lopper) is a tool that takes a system device tree as input and generates one or more traditional device trees as output (i.e. today's device tree for Linux.) System device tree comes with the description of multiple "execution domains" (https://connect.linaro.org/resources/ltd20/ltd20-205/) and the ability to assign resources to each of them. That part is vendor-neutral. We also have the ability to define a vendor-specific flag when assigning resources. All together it enables us to describe an openamp/remoteproc system with only very few vendor-specific info. I am working on a full example of an input system device tree with openamp information and the resulting traditional Linux devicetree. I'll make sure to reach out when I have it ready. > > So I think it is a good idea to take this opportunity to simplify the > > Xilinx remoteproc bindings as you suggested. The idea of to removing the > > TCM nodes is a good one. In addition I asked Ben to have a look at > > whether the mboxes and mbox-names properties can be removed too. > > > > If your remoteproc uses a mailbox for signaling, then this should be > described in devicetree. This will allow you to reuse components in > other designs where either part is replaced or reused. OK _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel