[PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: Documentation for qcom, llcc

[rishabhb at codeaurora.org]

On 2018-04-30 07:33, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:57 PM,  <rishabhb at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 2018-04-27 07:21, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 04:09:31PM -0700, Rishabh Bhatnagar wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Documentation for last level cache controller device tree bindings,
>>>> client bindings usage examples.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Channagoud Kadabi <ckadabi at codeaurora.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rishabh Bhatnagar <rishabhb at codeaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt      | 60
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
>>>>  create mode 100644
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My comments on v4 still apply.
>>> 
>>> Rob
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Rob,
>> Reposting our replies to your comments on v4:
>> 
>> This is partially true, a bunch of SoCs would support this design but
>> clients IDs are not expected to change. So Ideally client drivers 
>> could
>> hard code these IDs.
>> 
>> However I have other concerns of moving the client Ids in the driver.
>> The way the APIs implemented today are as follows:
>> #1. Client calls into system cache driver to get cache slice handle
>> with the usecase Id as input.
>> #2. System cache driver gets the phandle of system cache instance from
>> the client device to obtain the private data.
>> #3. Based on the usecase Id perform look up in the private data to get
>> cache slice handle.
>> #4. Return the cache slice handle to client
>> 
>> If we don't have the connection between client & system cache then the
>>  private data needs to declared as static global in the system cache 
>> driver,
>> that limits us to have just once instance of system cache block.
> 
> How many instances do you have?
> 
> It is easier to put the data into the kernel and move it to DT later
> than vice-versa. I don't think it is a good idea to do a custom
> binding here and one that only addresses caches and nothing else in
> the interconnect. So either we define an extensible and future-proof
> binding or put the data into the kernel for now.
> 
> Rob
Hi rob,
Currently we have only instance but how do you propose we handle 
multiple
instances in future?
Currently we do a lookup in the private data of the driver to get the 
slice
handle but, if we were to remove the client connection we will have to 
make
lookup table as global and we can't have more than one instance.
Also, can you suggest any extensible interconnect binding that we can 
refer
to?