Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: interconnect: Add rpmh virt devices

[Melody Olvera]

On 11/22/2022 1:50 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/11/2022 18:39, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>
>> On 11/20/2022 5:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 18/11/2022 19:22, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>>> Add documentation for virtual rpmh devices. These interconnects
>>>> are not controlled by the application processor and thus
>>>> require separate bindings. Also, move compatibles for sm8450 to
>>>> this document and add them for QDU1000/QRU1000 platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../bindings/interconnect/qcom,rpmh-virt.yaml | 55 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  .../bindings/interconnect/qcom,rpmh.yaml      |  2 -
>>>>  2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,rpmh-virt.yaml
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,rpmh-virt.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,rpmh-virt.yaml
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..5cbaa51df863
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,rpmh-virt.yaml
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>> +---
>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/interconnect/qcom,rpmh-virt.yaml#
>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>> +
>>>> +title: Qualcomm RPMh Virtual Network-On-Chip Interconnect
>>>> +
>>>> +maintainers:
>>>> +  - Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> +  - Odelu Kukatla <quic_okukatla@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> +
>>>> +description: |
>>>> +   RPMh interconnect providers support system bandwidth requirements through
>>>> +   RPMh hardware accelerators known as Bus Clock Manager (BCM). The provider is
>>>> +   able to communicate with the BCM through the Resource State Coordinator (RSC)
>>>> +   associated with each execution environment. Provider nodes must point to at
>>>> +   least one RPMh device child node pertaining to their RSC and each provider
>>>> +   can map to multiple RPMh resources. Virtual interconnect providers are not
>>>> +   controlled by AP and do not support QoS; they should not have associated
>>>> +   register regions.
>>>> +
>>>> +allOf:
>>>> +  - $ref: qcom,rpmh-common.yaml#
>>>> +
>>>> +properties:
>>>> +  compatible:
>>>> +    enum:
>>>> +      - qcom,qdu1000-clk-virt
>>>> +      - qcom,qdu1000-mc-virt
>>>> +      - qcom,sm8450-clk-virt
>>>> +      - qcom,sm8450-mc-virt
>>> You should also move qcom,sdx65-mc-virt, qcom,sc8280xp-mc-virt,
>>> qcom,sc8280xp-clk-virt and more.
>> Ok. I wasn't sure since some of these entries don't seem to conform to
>> these bindings, even though it seems they should.
> I have impression that devices I listed conform to these bindings, this
> is why I listed them. But if you are sure that they do not, then they
> should not be moved.

You're correct; those you listed do conform to the new bindings and should be moved.
I also caught qcom,sc7280-clk-virt which needs to be moved. I'll add to the new bindings.

Thanks,
Melody
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>