Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 7 Feb 2020 10:47:36 +0000 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc transports |
| |
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:08:36AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2020-02-06 13:01, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote: > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > SCMI could use SMC/HVC as tranports, so add into devicetree > > binding doc. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > index f493d69e6194..03cff8b55a93 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Required properties: > > > > The scmi node with the following properties shall be under the > > /firmware/ node. > > > > -- compatible : shall be "arm,scmi" > > +- compatible : shall be "arm,scmi" or "arm,scmi-smc" > > - mboxes: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifiers. It should > > contain > > exactly one or two mailboxes, one for transmitting messages("tx") > > and another optional for receiving the notifications("rx") if > > @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ The scmi node with the following properties shall be > > under the /firmware/ node. > > protocol identifier for a given sub-node. > > - #size-cells : should be '0' as 'reg' property doesn't have any size > > associated with it. > > +- arm,smc-id : SMC id required when using smc transports > > +- arm,hvc-id : HVC id required when using hvc transports > > > > Optional properties: > > Not directly related to DT: Why do we need to distinguish between SMC and > HVC?
IIUC you want just one property to get the function ID ? Does that align with what you are saying ? I wanted to ask the same question and I see no need for 2 different properties.
> Other SMC/HVC capable protocols are able to pick the right one based on the > PSCI conduit. >
This make it clear, but I am asking to be sure.
> This is how the Spectre mitigations work already. Why is that any different? >
I don't see any need for it to be different.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |