Hey Vignesh.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 02:02:31PM +0530, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> [...]
>
> Hi Mathieu
>
> On 16/08/24 20:06, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Attach to a running M4 remote processor (IPC-only mode)
> >>> + *
> >>> + * The remote processor is already booted, so there is no need to issue
> >>> any
> >>> + * TI-SCI commands to boot the M4 core. This callback is used only in
> >>> IPC-only
> >>> + * mode.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static int k3_m4_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct k3_m4_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + ret = k3_m4_rproc_ping_mbox(kproc);
> >>> + if (ret)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Detach from a running M4 remote processor (IPC-only mode)
> >>> + *
> >>> + * This rproc detach callback performs the opposite operation to attach
> >>> + * callback, the M4 core is not stopped and will be left to continue to
> >>> + * run its booted firmware. This callback is invoked only in IPC-only
> >>> mode.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static int k3_m4_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >> Please remove.
> > Forget this comment since it would cause an error in __rproc_detach().
> >
> >> Other than the above I'm good with this driver. That said I can't move
> >> forward
> >> without a nod from the DT crew. I also noticed a fair amount of code
> >> duplication with the k3_r5 and k3_dsp drivers. Dealing with that should
> >> not be
> >> part of the current work but will need to be done before another k3 driver
> >> can
> >> be merged.
> >>
>
> > The above still apply though.
>
> Me or Nishanth will pick up the SoC DT patches via TI SoC tree, once the
> driver patches are merged. Feel free to ignore those but queue
> dt-bindings (already has DT maintainers ack) and driver patches via
> rproc tree.
>
Can you provide a link where the DT maintainers have acknowledged the bindings?
>
> --
> Regards
> Vignesh
