linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mmc: add DT binding for S3C24XX MMC/SD/SDIO controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170124184932.GA20814@sprado-desktop>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:49:32 -0200
From:   Sergio Prado <sergio.prado@...abworks.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     ulf.hansson@...aro.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ben-linux@...ff.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mmc: add DT binding for S3C24XX
 MMC/SD/SDIO controller

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:38:16PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 01:05:52PM -0200, Sergio Prado wrote:
> > +This file documents differences between the core mmc properties described by
> > +mmc.txt and the properties used by the Samsung S3C24XX MMC/SD/SDIO controller
> > +implementation.
> > +
> > +Required SoC Specific Properties:
> > +- compatible: should be one of the following
> > +  - "samsung,s3c2410-sdi": for controllers compatible with s3c2410
> > +  - "samsung,s3c2412-sdi": for controllers compatible with s3c2412
> > +  - "samsung,s3c2440-sdi": for controllers compatible with s3c2440
> > +- clocks: Should reference the controller clock
> > +- clock-names: Should contain "sdi"
> 
> You are missing things from the example.

Properties "compatible", "clocks" and "clock-names" are documented.

Properties "bus-width", "cd-gpios" and "wp-gpios" are documented in
mmc.txt as I described before the example. Should I describe them again?

Do I need to document common properties like "pinctrl-names",
"pinctrl-0", "reg" and "interrupts"?

> 
> > +
> > +Example:
> > +	mmc0: mmc@...00000 {
> > +		compatible = "samsung,s3c2440-sdi";
> > +		pinctrl-names = "default";
> > +		pinctrl-0 = <&sdi_pins>;
> > +		reg = <0x5a000000 0x100000>;
> > +		interrupts = <0 0 21 3>;
> > +		clocks = <&clocks PCLK_SDI>;
> > +		clock-names = "sdi";
> > +		bus-width = <4>;
> > +		cd-gpios = <&gpg 8 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > +		wp-gpios = <&gph 8 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > +	};
> > +
> > +	Note: This example shows both SoC specific and board specific properties
> > +	in a single device node. The properties can be actually be separated
> > +	into SoC specific node and board specific node.
> 
> The source structure is not relavent to the binding.

OK.

> 
> Rob

-- 
Sergio Prado
Embedded Labworks
Office: +55 11 2628-3461
Mobile: +55 11 97123-3420