linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: add MediaTek XS-PHY binding

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]

Date:   Thu, 3 May 2018 09:20:36 +0800
From:   Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@...iatek.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
        Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@...iatek.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux USB List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: add MediaTek XS-PHY binding

On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 07:41 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@...iatek.com> wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> > On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 09:24 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 03:45:28PM +0800, Chunfeng Yun wrote:
> >> > Add a DT binding documentation of XS-PHY for MediaTek SoCs
> >> > with USB3.1 GEN2 controller
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> > +   reg = <0 0x11c43000 0 0x0200>;
> >> > +   mediatek,src-ref-clk-mhz = <26>;
> >> > +   mediatek,src-coef = <17>;
> >> > +   #address-cells = <2>;
> >> > +   #size-cells = <2>;
> >>
> >> Really need 64-bit sizes?
> > Just an example, 32-bit is also ok, but it's better to use the same
> > value as the root node
> 
> Why is it better?
> 
> It is unnecessary bloat and it is better to limit the range of child
> nodes using ranges.
I agree with you.
And here the parent and child address space is identical, and no address
translate is required, so use the same value as the root node, if the
root node uses 64-bit sizes, we will use 64-bit sizes as well,  if it
uses 32-bit sizes, we use 32-bit sizes too, in order to keep consistent.
> 
> Rob