[PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms

[Peng Fan]

> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: introduce
> property mbox-rx-timeout-ms
> 
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 11:48:31PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi:
> > > introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 12:33:09PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi:
> > > > > introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 10:39:53AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi:
> > > > > > > introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 11:17:14AM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS)
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > System Controller Management Interface(SCMI) firmwares
> > > might
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > different designs by SCMI firmware developers. So the
> > > maximum
> > > > > > > receive
> > > > > > > > channel timeout value might also varies in the various
> designs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So introduce property mbox-rx-timeout-ms to let each
> > > platform
> > > > > > > > could set its own timeout value in device tree.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > V2:
> > > > > > > >  Drop defaults, update description.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > | 6
> > > > > > > ++++++
> > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > >
> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > > > > >
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > > > > > index ebf384e76df1..dcac0b36c76f 100644
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > > > > > @@ -121,6 +121,12 @@ properties:
> > > > > > > >        atomic mode of operation, even if requested.
> > > > > > > >      default: 0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +  max-rx-timeout-ms:
> > > > > > > > +    description:
> > > > > > > > +      An optional time value, expressed in milliseconds,
> > > > > > > > + representing
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > +      mailbox maximum timeout value for receive channel.
> > > > > > > > + The value
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > +      be a non-zero value if set.
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IIRC, you had the min and max constraint in the earlier
> response.
> > > > > > > You need to have rushed and posted another version before
> I
> > > > > > > could respond with my preference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So there is no rush, these are v6.12 material. Take time for
> > > > > > > respining and give some time for the review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure. I just not sure what the maximum should be set, so I
> > > > > > drop the minimum and maximum from my previous email.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Worst case we can just have min constraint to indicate it must
> > > > > be
> > > > > non- zero value as you have mentioned above and drop that
> > > statement
> > > > > as it becomes explicit with the constraint.
> > > >
> > > > I'll use below in v3:
> > > >   max-rx-timeout-ms:
> > > >     description:
> > > >       An optional time value, expressed in milliseconds,
> > > > representing
> > > the
> > > >       mailbox maximum timeout value for receive channel. The
> value
> > > should
> > > >       be a non-zero value if set.
> > > >     minimum: 1
> > > >
> > > > Put the binding away, when you have time, please check whether
> the
> > > > driver changes are good or not.
> > > > BTW, since our Android team is waiting for this patchset got R-b
> > > > or A-b, then the patches could be accepted by Google common
> > > > kernel,
> > > we
> > > > could support GKI in our release which is soon in near days. So I
> > > > am being pushed :)
> > >
> > > Hi Peng,
> > >
> > > once the bindings are accepted I wanted to fold also this series of
> > > yours in my transport rework series.
> >
> > No problem, feel free to take it into your series, I will post out V3
> > later(wait if Sudeep is ok with I add minimum 1 or not), but v3 2/2
> > should be same as v2 2/2.
> >
> 
> Still not taken in transport rework V1, but not forgotten :D	

No problem. just posted out v3. Only binding change to add minimum,
no more changes.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240709140957.3171255-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com/#t

Regards,
Peng.

> 
> Thanks,
> Cristian