linux-kernel - Re: [Question] directory for SoC-related DT 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:16:53 +0200
From:   Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] directory for SoC-related DT binding

Am 10.10.2018 um 14:09 schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:04:14PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 10.10.2018 um 13:19 schrieb Rob Herring:
>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:08 AM Masahiro Yamada
>>> <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see a bunch of vendor (or SoC) names in
>>>> Documentation/device/bindings/arm/
>>>>
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic
>>> Yeah, it's kind of a mixture of board/soc bindings mostly with some
>>> ARM architecture, ARM, Ltd. IP, and SoC system reg bindings.
>>>
>>> Eventually, I'd like to not split board bindings by arch and maybe we
>>> should move all the system/misc reg bindings out.
>>>
>>> [,,,]
>>>
>>>> I also see some vendor names in
>>>> Documentation/device/bindings/soc/
>>>>
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/dove
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/mediatek
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/xilinx
>>>> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/zte
>>> This I believe is mostly SoC system reg bindings though there's
>>> probably a few other things.
>>>
>>>> Confusingly, I see bcm, mediatek, rockchip
>>>> in both locations.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any rule to choose one than the other?
>>> Top-level SoC/board bindings in arm/ and anything else elsewhere ideally.
>> in case of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm the directory
>> contains SoC / board bindings, cpu-enable and a firmware binding.
> I think you're confused there...
>
> $ ls -1 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/bcm/
> brcm,bcm2835-vchiq.txt
> raspberrypi,bcm2835-power.txt
>
> Doesn't look like SoC/board bindings to me...
>
> whereas:
>
> $ ls -1 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/
> brcm,bcm11351-cpu-method.txt
> brcm,bcm11351.txt
> brcm,bcm21664.txt
> brcm,bcm23550-cpu-method.txt
> brcm,bcm23550.txt
> brcm,bcm2835.txt
> brcm,bcm4708.txt
> brcm,bcm63138.txt
> brcm,brcmstb.txt
> brcm,cygnus.txt
> brcm,hr2.txt
> brcm,ns2.txt
> brcm,nsp-cpu-method.txt
> brcm,nsp.txt
> brcm,stingray.txt
> brcm,vulcan-soc.txt
> raspberrypi,bcm2835-firmware.txt
>
> does fit with your description, except for the directory path...

sorry, my fault i copied the wrong path. I actually thought of
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/

Thanks for pointing out