linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] arm64: dts: sdm845: Add minimal dts/dtsi files for sdm845 SoC and MTP

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:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:00:57 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, evgreen@...omium.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, swboyd@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] arm64: dts: sdm845: Add minimal dts/dtsi files for
 sdm845 SoC and MTP

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> +               gcc: clock-controller@...000 {
> +                       compatible = "qcom,gcc-sdm845";
> +                       reg = <0x100000 0x1f0000>;
> +                       #clock-cells = <1>;
> +                       #reset-cells = <1>;
> +               };

Seems like we need "#power-domain-cells = <1>;" in the gcc node.

It is true that the property is listed as "optional" in the bindings,
but we certainly know that the
"include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sdm845.h" that's posted [1]
contains several defines ending in "_GDSC" and once we start
referencing those we'll need "#power-domain-cells".  Seems like we
should just have it from the beginning.

NOTE: IMHO adding "#power-domain-cells" could be done as a follow-on
patch, but since (I think) this series still hasn't landed I guess we
could just send up v6?

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10267093/

-Doug