linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] arm: mvebu: Add device tree for 98DX3236 SoCs

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]

Message-ID: <20170105135837.GC25333@leverpostej>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2017 13:58:37 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] arm: mvebu: Add device tree for 98DX3236 SoCs

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:36:40PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
> +		internal-regs {
> +			coreclk: mvebu-sar@...30 {
> +				compatible = "marvell,mv98dx3236-core-clock";
> +			};
> +
> +			cpuclk: clock-complex@...00 {
> +				compatible = "marvell,mv98dx3236-cpu-clock";
> +			};
> +
> +			corediv-clock@...40 {
> +				compatible = "marvell,mv98dx3236-corediv-clock";
> +				reg = <0xf8268 0xc>;
> +				base = <&dfx>;
> +				#clock-cells = <1>;
> +				clocks = <&mainpll>;
> +				clock-output-names = "nand";
> +			};

[...]

> +		};
> +
> +		dfx-registers {
> +			compatible = "simple-bus";
> +			#address-cells = <1>;
> +			#size-cells = <1>;
> +			ranges = <0 MBUS_ID(0x08, 0x00) 0 0x100000>;
> +
> +			dfx: dfx@0 {
> +				compatible = "simple-bus";
> +				reg = <0 0x100000>;
> +			};
> +		};

What is this dfx-registers, exactly? It has no children, so why is it a
simple-bus?

>From the above, and the patch adding the corediv driver, it looks like
the corediv-clock actually lives in this block, so I don't understand
why the corediv-clock is sitting in internal-regs with a sideband
reference to dfx.

Thanks,
Mark.