Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1459502 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-10 20:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-13 00:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] dt-binding: remoteproc: Document generic properties Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> - 2016-08-10 20:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] dt-binding: remoteproc: Document generic properties Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2016-08-12 20:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] dt-binding: remoteproc: Document generic properties Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> - 2016-08-13 00:50 +0200
| From | Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 20:50 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] dt-binding: remoteproc: Document generic properties |
| Message-ID | <s4GJI-j6-41@gated-at.bofh.it> |
This documents the generic properties "rprocs" and "rproc-names", used for consumer drivers to reference a remoteproc node. Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> --- .../devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc.txt | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc.txt diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..0b1d8183be87 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/remoteproc.txt @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +Common remoteproc properties + +A remoteproc node represents the mechanism and resources needed for controlling +a co-processor's life cycle; including loading firmware, booting, shutting down +and handling exceptions. + + += Consumer properties +A consumer node referencing a remoteproc node, so that it can requests life +cycle transitions can use the following properties: + +- rprocs: + Usage: required + Value type: <prop-encoded-array> + Definition: a list of phandle references to remoteproc nodes + +- rproc-names: + Usage: optional + Value type: <stringlist> + Definition: a list of strings naming each entry in "rprocs", allowing + consumer drivers to look up remoteprocs by name -- 2.5.0
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s5px8-5jJ-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1459502 |
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:37:02AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > This documents the generic properties "rprocs" and "rproc-names", used > for consumer drivers to reference a remoteproc node. How do you intend to use this? I wonder if it would not be better to expose a remote proc with existing bindings for a particular purpose (e.g. clocks, resets, etc.) rather than a generic connection. The client side would have to have specific knowledge as to what functions the remote proc provides. Rob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 00:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s5tr3-7Vp-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1461377 |
On Fri 12 Aug 11:34 PDT 2016, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:37:02AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > This documents the generic properties "rprocs" and "rproc-names", used > > for consumer drivers to reference a remoteproc node. > > How do you intend to use this? I wonder if it would not be better to > expose a remote proc with existing bindings for a particular purpose > (e.g. clocks, resets, etc.) rather than a generic connection. The client > side would have to have specific knowledge as to what functions the > remote proc provides. > The remoteproc node represents the mechanism and resources needed to control the life cycle a co-processor, e.g. loading, booting, shutting gown a video encoder/decoder. The proposed reference allows a separate thingie to assert control of the life cycle of that co-processor. I acknowledge that in some cases there is a fine line between what is the life cycle management and what is the actual functionality implemented by that remote processor. But as the remoteproc mechanism is reusable between various use cases I think it makes sense to not describe them as one unit. Regards, Bjorn
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web