Re: DT Query on "New Compatible vs New Property"

From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
	Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@quicinc.com>,
	Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@quicinc.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	"Prasad Sodagudi (QUIC)" <quic_psodagud@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: DT Query on "New Compatible vs New Property"
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:21:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a6156e7d-e550-4b0f-992d-be0a7b39ac56@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFpNo1g9j-JojzN3sbq==mnaKsamrd9EyskDUDZS=AB3mg@mail.gmail.com>

On 13/03/2024 09:19, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 18:25, Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/2024 10:21 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Basically, I would prefer better than "qcom, fw-managed" since this is not
>>>> a qcom specific problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> We already have something like this in mainline where the BAM DMA controller is remotely powered.
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom,bam-dma.yaml?h=v6.8
>>>
>>
>> As you can see it is already fragmented. Why we need to create one more approach
>> which is not scalable and specific to SOC vendor?
>>
>> SCMI or RPMI based firmware is not a QC specific. I also have allergic reaction
>> when I see drivers modified w/ if (fw_managed) {..} but that is a discussion
>> for some other day.
>>
>>
> 
> For the record, I fully agree with Trilok here.
> 
> More importantly, why is the other suggested approach(es) a problem? I
> don't get it.

Are we going to do this with each driver on every new board that will be 
added?

thanks,
Srini
> 

> Kind regards
> Uffe