Add bindings for the Samsung Exynos ACPM mailbox protocol.
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
---
.../bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..982cb8d62011
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
+# Copyright 2024 Linaro Ltd.
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Samsung Exynos ACPM mailbox protocol
+
+maintainers:
+ - Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
+
+description: |
+ ACPM (Alive Clock and Power Manager) is a firmware that operates on the
+ APM (Active Power Management) module that handles overall power management
+ activities. ACPM and masters regard each other as independent hardware
+ component and communicate with each other using mailbox messages and
+ shared memory.
+
+ This binding is intended to define the interface the firmware implementing
+ ACPM provides for OSPM in the device tree.
+
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ const: google,gs101-acpm-ipc
+
+ mboxes:
+ maxItems: 1
+
+ shmem:
+ description:
+ List of phandle pointing to the shared memory (SHM) area. The memory
+ contains channels configuration data and the TX/RX ring buffers that
+ are used for passing messages to/from the ACPM firmware.
+ maxItems: 1
+
+required:
+ - compatible
+ - mboxes
+ - shmem
+
+additionalProperties: false
+
+examples:
+ - |
+ power-management {
+ compatible = "google,gs101-acpm-ipc";
+ mboxes = <&ap2apm_mailbox>;
+ shmem = <&apm_sram>;
+ };
--
2.48.1.502.g6dc24dfdaf-googOn Tue Feb 11, 2025 at 9:52 AM CET, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > Add bindings for the Samsung Exynos ACPM mailbox protocol. > > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > --- > .../bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..982cb8d62011 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) Shouldn't this be ``(GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)`` ? AFAIK it's the recommended form since SPDX 3.0: https://spdx.dev/license-list-3-0-released/ Cheers, Diederik
On 2/11/25 10:36 AM, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> Shouldn't this be ``(GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)`` ?
>
> AFAIK it's the recommended form since SPDX 3.0:
> https://spdx.dev/license-list-3-0-released/
It should, it's a copy-paste error.
Looking in the driver patch, I shall update
include/linux/firmware/samsung/exynos-acpm-protocol.h to GPL-2.0-only as
well.
And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/
everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later].
I'm going to respin everything to fix the License mismatch in the set.
Thanks!
ta
Hi Tudor,
On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/
> everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later].
No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst.
Cheers,
Andre'
On 11/02/2025 13:02, André Draszik wrote:
> Hi Tudor,
>
> On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/
>> everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later].
>
> No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst.
For the rest of suggestions here I also recommend rereading docs. I
don't get why we need to change "GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause", but maybe I
miss some docs. Whatever SPDX recommends is irrelevant if kernel
recommends for example something else, so be sure you make it aligned
with actual kernel preference.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 2/11/25 12:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/02/2025 13:02, André Draszik wrote:
>> Hi Tudor,
>>
>> On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/
>>> everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later].
>>
>> No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst.
Indeed, thanks, Andre'! The tag shouldn't convey the detailed license
information, as the only decision to be made is whether the module is
free software or not. I'll keep MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> For the rest of suggestions here I also recommend rereading docs. I
always a good suggestion :)
> don't get why we need to change "GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause", but maybe I
I reread the docs, LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 says that:
'''
For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
or
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
```
the two are equivalent. The downstream driver uses "GPL-2.0-only". I
think it'd be good that everything that I derived from it to have the
same SPDX value, for consistency reasons.
Thus I'll amend the license on the bindings file and on
include/linux/firmware/samsung/exynos-acpm-protocol.h only.
I'm not thrilled about a new version for such a small change, but I
think it's worth it.
Thanks,
ta
On Tue Feb 11, 2025 at 1:05 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/02/2025 13:02, André Draszik wrote:
>> On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/
>>> everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later].
>>
>> No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst.
> For the rest of suggestions here I also recommend rereading docs. I
> don't get why we need to change "GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause", but maybe I
> miss some docs. Whatever SPDX recommends is irrelevant if kernel
> recommends for example something else, so be sure you make it aligned
> with actual kernel preference.
Unfortunately, ``Documentation/process/license-rules.rst`` and
``LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0`` are not in 'sync', but I guess that's
(potentially) a discussion for another ML.
TL;DR: ``license-rules.rst`` says "GPL-2.0" while the license file
allows both.
References:
9376ff9ba298 ("LICENSES/GPL2.0: Add GPL-2.0-only/or-later as valid identifiers")
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20180422220833.078058446@linutronix.de/
(which mentions specifying the SPDX version, but that didn't get
implemented)
*sigh*
On 11/02/2025 14:29, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Tue Feb 11, 2025 at 1:05 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/02/2025 13:02, André Draszik wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>> And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/
>>>> everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later].
>>>
>>> No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst.
>> For the rest of suggestions here I also recommend rereading docs. I
>> don't get why we need to change "GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause", but maybe I
>> miss some docs. Whatever SPDX recommends is irrelevant if kernel
>> recommends for example something else, so be sure you make it aligned
>> with actual kernel preference.
>
> Unfortunately, ``Documentation/process/license-rules.rst`` and
> ``LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0`` are not in 'sync', but I guess that's
> (potentially) a discussion for another ML.
>
> TL;DR: ``license-rules.rst`` says "GPL-2.0" while the license file
> allows both.
What exactly is there not in sync? To me it shows the preferred GPL-2.0,
over GPL-2.0-only.
LICENSES has licenses and all SPDX tags. license-rules for
simplification uses only some and the ones there could be understood as
preferred. Probably this should be changed first.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.