Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1433856

Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add binding for HSP mailbox

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/28/2016 11:56 PM, Joseph Lo wrote:
> On 06/29/2016 03:08 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/28/2016 03:15 AM, Joseph Lo wrote:
>>> On 06/27/2016 11:55 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 06/27/2016 03:02 AM, Joseph Lo wrote:
> snip.
>>>
>>> Currently the usage of HSP HW in the downstream kernel is something like
>>> the model below.
>>>
>>> remote_processor_A-\
>>> remote_processor_B--->hsp@1000 (doorbell func) <-> host CPU
>>> remote_processor_C-/
>>>
>>> remote_processor_D -> hsp@2000 (shared mailbox) <-> CPU
>>>
>>> remote_processor_E -> hsp@3000 (shared mailbox) <-> CPU
>>>
>>> I am thinking if we can just add the appropriate compatible strings for
>>> it to replace "nvidia,tegra186-hsp". e.g. "nvidia,tegra186-hsp-doorbell"
>>> and "nvidia,tegra186-hsp-sharedmailbox". So the driver can probe and
>>> initialize correctly depend on the compatible property. How do you think
>>> about it? Is this the same as the (b) you mentioned above?
>>
>> Yes, that would be (b) above.
>>
>> However, please do note (a): I expect that splitting things up will turn
>> out to be a mistake, as it has for other HW modules in the past. I would
>> far rather see a single hsp node in DT, since there is a single HSP
>> block in HW. Sure that block has multiple sub-functions. However, there
>> is common logic that affects all of those sub-functions and binds
>> everything into a single HW module. If you represent the HW module using
>> multiple different DT nodes, it will be hard to correctly represent that
>> common logic. Conversely, I see no real advantage to splitting up the DT
>> node. I strongly believe we should have a single "hsp" node in DT.
>
> We have 6 HSP block in HW. FYI.

Yes, we have 6 /instances/ of the overall HSP block. Those should each 
have their own node, since they're entirely separate modules, all 
instances of the same configurable IP block.

Above, I was talking about the sub-blocks within each HSP instance, 
which should all be represented into a single node per instance, for a 
total of 6 DT nodes overall.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add binding for HSP mailbox Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> - 2016-06-27 11:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add  binding for HSP mailbox Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> - 2016-06-27 18:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add  binding for HSP mailbox Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> - 2016-06-28 11:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add  binding for HSP mailbox Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> - 2016-06-28 21:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add  binding for HSP mailbox Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> - 2016-06-29 08:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add  binding for HSP mailbox Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> - 2016-06-29 17:30 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add  binding for HSP mailbox Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> - 2016-06-30 11:40 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add  binding for HSP mailbox Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> - 2016-06-30 18:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: mailbox: tegra: Add  binding for HSP mailbox Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> - 2016-07-01 04:30 +0200

csiph-web