Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] dt-bindings: dmaengine: bam_dma: Add "powered remotely" mode

[Bhupesh Sharma]

Hi,

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 18:26, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 05:04:31PM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 20:12, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > In some configurations, the BAM DMA controller is set up by a remote
> > > processor and the local processor can simply start making use of it
> > > without setting up the BAM. This is already supported using the
> > > "qcom,controlled-remotely" property.
> > >
> > > However, for some reason another possible configuration is that the
> > > remote processor is responsible for powering up the BAM, but we are
> > > still responsible for initializing it (e.g. resetting it etc). Add
> > > a "qcom,powered-remotely" property to describe that configuration.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Changes since RFC:
> > >   - Rename qcom,remote-power-collapse -> qcom,powered-remotely
> > >     for consistency with "qcom,controlled-remotely"
> > >
> > > NOTE: This is *not* a compile-time requirement for the BAM-DMUX driver
> > >       so this could also go through the dmaengine tree.
> > >
> > > Also note that there is an ongoing effort to convert these bindings
> > > to DT schema but sadly there were not any updates for a while. :/
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20210519143700.27392-2-bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Seems you missed the latest series posted last week - [1]. Sorry I got
> > a bit delayed posting it due to being caught up in other patches.
> >
> > Maybe you can rebase your patch on the same and use the YAML bindings
> > for the qcom,bam_dma controller.
> >
> > [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20211013105541.68045-1-bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
> >
>
> Ah, you're right sorry! Seems like you sent it two days after I sent the
> v2 of this patch. Thanks a lot for continuing work on this! :)
>
> Since I already sent v3 of this patch earlier, I think it is best if
> I wait a bit first and see if Vinod has any comments or still wants to
> take it for 5.16. Should be simple to rebase either of our patches on
> the other one.

Sure, let's wait for Vinod's comments.

Regards,
Bhupesh