On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 08:23:39PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 09:10:22AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 10:16:10PM GMT, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > > > If this is a device, then compatibles specific to devices. You do not
> > > > get different rules than all other bindings... or this does not have to
> > > > be binding at all. Why standard reserved-memory does not work for here?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you need compatible in the first place?
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting something like this?
> > >
> > > reserved-memory {
> > > # address-cells = <2>;
> > > # size-cells = <1>;
> > >
> > > wakeup_mailbox: wakeupmb@fff000 {
> > > reg = < 0x0 0xfff000 0x1000>
> > > }
> > >
> > > and then reference to the reserved memory using the wakeup_mailbox
> > > phandle?
> >
> > Yes just like every other, typical reserved memory block.
>
> Thanks! I will take this approach and drop this patch.
If there is nothing else to this other than the reserved region, then
don't do this. Keep it like you had. There's no need for 2 nodes.
Rob
