linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/14] ARM: STi: DT: STiH410: Add usb2 picophy dt nodes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:54:19 +0000
From:	Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	maxime.coquelin@...com, srinivas.kandagatla@...il.com,
	patrice.chotard@...com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	lee.jones@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/14] ARM: STi: DT: STiH410: Add usb2 picophy dt nodes

Hi Arnd,

Thanks for reviewing.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Thursday 13 November 2014 11:00:16 Peter Griffin wrote:
> > +       soc {
> > +               usb2_picophy0: usbpicophy@0 {
> > +                       compatible = "st,stih407-usb2-phy";
> > +                       reg = <0xf8 0x04>,      /* syscfg 5062 */
> > +                             <0xf4 0x04>;      /* syscfg 5061 */
> > 
> 
> I think the node name for the phy should be "phy@f8" instead of usbpicophy@0
> by common convention. I notice that there are some existing instances of
> this, you can probably change them as well. Linux doesn't normally care
> about the node names.

Ok will fix in v3

> 
> It also seems that you have put the node in the wrong place, as the reg
> property apparently refers to a different address space. Did you mean
> to put this under the syscfg_core node?

Your correct in that it refers to the syscfg_core address space.
However I intentionaly didn't put it under the syscfg_core node.

The phy is more unique than most other devices in that in this instance it
is only controlled from two syscfg_core registers which happen to be in the same
sysconf bank.

However most other devices tend to have a combination of some memory mapped
registers and also some sysconfig registers which does then create a conflict
over where the dt node should live.

Currently I can't find an example but there is also no guarentee that a
device will not have some configuration bits in syscfg_core and some
other bits in syscfg_rear/front registers. The phy for example could
have had one register in each, which would make deciding where to put
it difficult.

So to create coherency / conformity we decided to put all the IP blocks under the soc node.

Also its worth pointing if your not already aware that sysconf_core/rear/front isn't
really a device, it's just a regmap abstraction of some memory mapped configuration
registers where a bunch of seemingly random control bits get stuffed.

Of course if you feel strongly about it I can of course change it like you suggested,
but that is the reasoning / rationale of why it was done like this initially.

regards,

Peter.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/