Re: [PATCH V2 03/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: firmware: tegra: add bindings of the BPMP

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/18/2016 01:44 AM, Joseph Lo wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks for your reviewing.
>
> On 07/12/2016 12:05 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 07/11/2016 08:22 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 05:04:24PM +0800, Joseph Lo wrote:
> > > > The BPMP is a specific processor in Tegra chip, which is designed for
> > > > booting process handling and offloading the power management, clock
> > > > management, and reset control tasks from the CPU. The binding document
> > > > defines the resources that would be used by the BPMP firmware driver,
> > > > which can create the interprocessor communication (IPC) between the CPU
> > > > and BPMP.
> >
> > > > diff --git
> > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
> > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
> >
> > > > +NVIDIA Tegra Boot and Power Management Processor (BPMP)
> > > > +
> > > > +The BPMP is a specific processor in Tegra chip, which is designed for
> > > > +booting process handling and offloading the power management, clock
> > > > +management, and reset control tasks from the CPU. The binding document
> > > > +defines the resources that would be used by the BPMP firmware driver,
> > > > +which can create the interprocessor communication (IPC) between the
> > > > CPU
> > > > +and BPMP.
> > > > +
> > > > +Required properties:
> > > > +- name : Should be bpmp
> > > > +- compatible
> > > > +    Array of strings
> > > > +    One of:
> > > > +    - "nvidia,tegra186-bpmp"
> > > > +- mboxes : The phandle of mailbox controller and the mailbox
> > > > specifier.
> > > > +- shmem : List of the phandle of the TX and RX shared memory area that
> > > > +      the IPC between CPU and BPMP is based on.
> > >
> > > I think you can use memory-region here.
> >
> > Isn't memory-region intended for references into the /reserved-memory
> > node. If so, that isn't appropriate in this case since this property
> > typically points at on-chip SRAM that isn't included in the OS's view of
> > "system RAM".
> Agree with that.
>
> > Or, should /reserved-memory be used even for (e.g. non-DRAM) memory
> > regions that aren't represented by the /memory/reg property?
>
> For shmem, I follow the same concept of the binding for arm,scpi
> (.../arm/arm,scpi.txt) that is currently using in mainline. Do you think
> that is more appropriate here?

Personally I think the shmem property name used by the current patch is 
fine. Still, if Rob feels strongly about changing it, that's fine too.