linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] dt-bindings: phy-qcom-qmp: Fix register underspecification

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: <CAD=FV=UKfDsthT4W3H4jR0Qvw-izLShCjWngN2uBrY-FUEtDDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:52:39 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        cang@...eaurora.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] dt-bindings: phy-qcom-qmp: Fix register underspecification

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:40 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Evan Green (2018-10-26 10:35:40)
> >                         (or)
> > @@ -150,3 +153,54 @@ Example:
> >                 ...
> >                 ...
> >         };
> > +
> > +       phy@...b000 {
> > +               compatible = "qcom,sdm845-qmp-usb3-uni-phy";
> > +               reg = <0x88eb000 0x18c>;
> > +               #clock-cells = <1>;
> > +               #address-cells = <1>;
> > +               #size-cells = <1>;
> > +               ranges;
> > +
> > +               clocks = <&gcc GCC_USB3_SEC_PHY_AUX_CLK>,
> > +                        <&gcc GCC_USB_PHY_CFG_AHB2PHY_CLK>,
> > +                        <&gcc GCC_USB3_SEC_CLKREF_CLK>,
> > +                        <&gcc GCC_USB3_SEC_PHY_COM_AUX_CLK>;
> > +               clock-names = "aux", "cfg_ahb", "ref", "com_aux";
> > +
> > +               resets = <&gcc GCC_USB3PHY_PHY_SEC_BCR>,
> > +                        <&gcc GCC_USB3_PHY_SEC_BCR>;
> > +               reset-names = "phy", "common";
> > +
> > +               lane@...b200 {
> > +                       reg = <0x88eb200 0x128>,
> > +                             <0x88eb400 0x1fc>,
> > +                             <0x88eb800 0x218>,
> > +                             <0x88eb600 0x70>;
> > +                       #phy-cells = <0>;
> > +                       clocks = <&gcc GCC_USB3_SEC_PHY_PIPE_CLK>;
> > +                       clock-names = "pipe0";
> > +                       clock-output-names = "usb3_uni_phy_pipe_clk_src";
>
> If this has clock-output-names then I would expect to see a #clock-cells
> property, but that isn't here in this node. Are we relying on the same
> property in the parent node?

If I had to guess, I believe it's yet more confusing than that.  I
believe you actually point to the parent phandle if you want to use
the clock.  I notice that the parent has #clock-cells as 1 so
presumably this is how you point to one child or the other?  ...but I
don't think it's documented how this works.  The lane nodes don't have
any sort of ID as far as I can tell.  ...and in any case having
#clock-cells of 1 makes no sense for USB 3 PHYs which are supposed to
only have one child?

Let's look at the code, maybe?  Hrm, phy_pipe_clk_register() takes no
ID or anything.  Huh?  OK, so as far as I can tell
of_clk_add_provider() is never called on this clock...

So I think the answer is that #clock-cells should be <0> and should
move to the child node to match with clock-output-names.  Then I guess
(if anyone references this clock from the device tree rather than
relying on the global clock-output-names) we should add the
of_clk_add_provider() into the code?

Maybe we can add that as a patch to the end of this series?  There are
so many crazy / random things wrong with these bindings that it makes
sense to make smaller / incremental changes?

-Doug