"Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 18:59 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> On 16/06/16 18:47, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: >> > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 11:38 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> > [...] >> >> +enum scpi_power_domain_state { >> >> + SCPI_PD_STATE_ON = 0, >> >> + SCPI_PD_STATE_OFF = 3, >> >> +}; >> > >> > The SCPI doc defines the meaning of these numbers (0 and 3) in the 'Juno >> > specifics' chapter. So does these values need to come from device-tree >> > to allow for other hardware or SCP implementations? >> > >> >> Ah unfortunately true :(. I had not noticed that. But I would like to >> check if this can be made as part of the standard protocol. Adding such >> details to DT seems overkill and defeat of the whole purpose of the >> standard protocol. > > Well. it seems to me the 'standard protocol' is whatever the current > implementation of ARM's closed source SCP firmware is. It also seems to > me that people are making things up as they go along, without a clue as > to how to make things generic, robust and future proof. Basically, > Status Normal ARM Fucked Up.
Fully agree here. Just because ARM calls it a "standard" does not make it so. As we've already seen[1], vendors are using initial/older/whatever versions of SCPI, so pushing the Juno version as standard just becuase it's in ARM's closed firmware is not the right way forward either. Kevin [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=146425562931515&w=2
