[PATCH] soc: ti: wkup_m3_ipc: switch to using remoteproc OF infrastructure

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna at ti.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 08/16/2016 09:54 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Bjorn Andersson
>> <bjorn.andersson at linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri 12 Aug 09:00 PDT 2016, Suman Anna wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/12/2016 06:02 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Suman Anna wrote:
>>>>>

[...]

>>>> Once "rprocs" hits mainline, I will definitely switch over the
>>>> wkup_m3_ipc nodes to use that standard property and can fix this driver
>>>> independently.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We're stuck with this problem all over the place, as the world continues
>>> to evolve we will have issues with DT being static. This has been
>>> discussed many times before and the suggested solution is always what
>>> you implemented here - make the code deal with both versions, preferably
>>> by patching.
>>>
>>> The fact that you had to export the of_ operations indicates that no-one
>>> has tried this before and I'm happy you did. I'm however not happy about
>>> the size of the chunk of code it takes to do this dance.
>>>
>>> I think for this to be practical we need to provide higher level
>>> operations for DT modification - in this case a of_rename_property().
>>>
>>> @Rob, any comments on this?
>>
>> I agree. Pantelis submitted some helpers in this area a while back
>> (for the changeset API IIRC). I believe they were mostly fine, but
>> needed some users.
>>
>
> Is this the series you are talking about?
> http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=146341689512653&w=2
>
> It looks like that series is effective only when OF_DYNAMIC is enabled.

Yes, as changeset API allows adding/removing nodes. It's probably just
a matter of time until OF_DYNAMIC is always enabled.

> Probably a dumb question, but is this limited to DT Overlays?

No, changesets are the mechanism overlays use to apply changes.

> This
> particular usage is a one-time change (first-time module is insmod'd)
> mainly to provide compatibility for older DTBs, thereafter we wouldn't
> be required to make any changes. It is definitely not a bulk update and
> we don't want to unroll the changes even if we removed the module.

If you only need property changes, then we could do similar helpers to
make it easier for callers.

Rob