Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add nodes to boot WPSS

[Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>]

On 2021-03-24 12:19, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> On 2021-03-24 03:36, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-03-13 20:16:39)
>>> On Sat 13 Mar 15:46 CST 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-03-08 21:51:51)
>>> > > Add miscellaneous nodes to boot the Wireless Processor Subsystem on
>>> >
>>> > Maybe add (WPSS) after the name so we know they're related.
>>> >
>>> > > SC7280 SoCs.
>>> > >
>>> > > Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>
>>> > > ---
>>> > >
>>> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=438217
>>> > > Depends on ipcc dt node enablement from ^^
>>> > >
>>> > >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> > >  1 file changed, 143 insertions(+)
>>> > >
>>> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>>> > > index 18637c369c1d..4f03c468df51 100644
>>> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>>> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>>> > > @@ -244,12 +251,131 @@
>>> > >                 reg = <0 0x80000000 0 0>;
>>> > >         };
>>> > >
>>> > > +       tcsr_mutex: hwlock {
>>> > > +               compatible = "qcom,tcsr-mutex";
>>> > > +               syscon = <&tcsr_mutex_regs 0 0x1000>;
>>> > > +               #hwlock-cells = <1>;
>>> > > +       };
>>> >
>>> > Is this node in the right place? I think the node above it is 'memory'?
>>> > In which case 'hwlock' comes before 'memory' alphabetically.
>>> >
>>> 
>>> Thanks for spotting this, as it's no longer acceptable to have a
>>> standalone "syscon" node I was asked to rewrite the binding for this 
>>> a
>>> few months ago. So the tcsr_mutex should now be represented with a 
>>> reg
>>> under /soc.
>> 
>> Oh nice, I wasn't aware.
>> 
>>> > > +                       #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>>> > > +               };
>>> > > +       };
>>> > > +
>>> > > +       smp2p-mpss {
>>> > > +               compatible = "qcom,smp2p";
>>> > > +               qcom,smem = <435>, <428>;
>>> > > +               interrupts-extended = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS
>>> > > +                                            IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P
>>> > > +                                            IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>>> > > +               mboxes = <&ipcc IPCC_CLIENT_MPSS
>>> > > +                               IPCC_MPROC_SIGNAL_SMP2P>;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +               qcom,local-pid = <0>;
>>> > > +               qcom,remote-pid = <1>;
>>> > > +
>>> > > +               modem_smp2p_out: master-kernel {
>>> > > +                       qcom,entry-name = "master-kernel";
>>> > > +                       #qcom,smem-state-cells = <1>;
>>> > > +               };
>>> > > +
>>> > > +               modem_smp2p_in: slave-kernel {
>>> > > +                       qcom,entry-name = "slave-kernel";
>>> >
>>> > Do these names need to have 'master' and 'slave' in them? We're trying
>>> > to avoid these terms. See Documentation/process/coding-style.rst Section
>>> > 4 naming.
>>> >
>>> 
>>> They need to match the naming in the firmware, but I would welcome a
>>> future change to something in line with the coding style and simply 
>>> more
>>> descriptive.
>>> 
>> 
>> Sibi can this be done? I think it's still pretty early days for the
>> firmware so hopefully the terms can be replaced with something
>> different.
> 
> I'll discuss the ask with the modem fw team and
> get back.

Sorry for the delayed response. Looks
like it's something Qualcomm wouldn't
want to do mid-project since a number
of the fw images are re-used across
platforms. But this is something that
will be taken up on newer SoCs.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.