RE: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc transports

[Peng Fan]

Hi Sudeep,

> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: arm,scmi: add smc/hvc
> transports
> 
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:58:49AM +0800, peng.fan@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > SCMI could use SMC/HVC as tranports. Since there is no standardized
> > id, we need to use vendor specific id. So add into devicetree binding
> > doc.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt
> > index f493d69e6194..dacc62dc248b 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt
> > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ 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.
> > +- smc-id : SMC id required when using smc or hvc transports
> 
> IIUC, "arm,smc-id" is preferred more.

ok. Fix in v3.

> 
> Why did you drop "arm,scmi-smc" ?

Per our discuss in v1 patchset, mailbox/smc-id could be used
to differentiate mailbox and smc transports.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/11/226

So I still use "arm,scmi" for smc tranports. 


Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep