On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:22:52PM +0530, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 17/01/22 11:01 am, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On 13/01/22 7:42 pm, Tom Rini wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 01:25:26PM +0530, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > >> > >>> From: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> > >>> > >>> If there is an optional boot notification channel that an SoC uses > >>> separate from the rx path, use the same. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> > >>> --- > >>> .../remoteproc/k3-system-controller.txt | 3 +++ > >>> drivers/remoteproc/k3_system_controller.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++- > >>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> Binding docs are rst these days, so we should sync with upstream and > >> then this property is already there, right? > >> > > > > I will create a followup patch to convert documentation to rst. Also, > > about the property, mbox-names property is already present but > > "boot_notify" is a newly added channel and not are required property. > > So, this was additionally added. > > > > One more question regarding documentation, should it be changed to rst > or yaml, as this is a device tree binding?
I mis-spoke, yeah. It should be yaml and pushed upstream first, then brought back here. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature