linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: nvmem: add binding for QTI SPMI SDAM

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: <b4f2fcc0d0a6724d77947f917f114d80@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:24:57 +0530
From:   sthella@...eaurora.org
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: nvmem: add binding for QTI SPMI SDAM

On 2020-01-09 21:01, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 4:57 AM <sthella@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2020-01-08 22:09, Rob Herring wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 11:02:12AM +0530, Shyam Kumar Thella wrote:
>> >> QTI SDAM allows PMIC peripherals to access the shared memory that is
>> >> available on QTI PMICs. Add documentation for it.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Shyam Kumar Thella <sthella@...eaurora.org>
>> >> ---
>> >>  .../devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml  | 79
>> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>  1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)
>> >>  create mode 100644
>> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml
>> >>
>> >> diff --git
>> >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml
>> >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml
>> >> new file mode 100644
>> >> index 0000000..8961a99
>> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml
>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
>> >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> >
>> > Dual license new bindings:
>> >
>> > (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> >
>> > Please spread the word in QCom.
>> Sure. I will add Dual license in next patchset.
>> >
>> >> +%YAML 1.2
>> >> +---
>> >> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml#
>> >> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>> >> +
>> >> +title: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. SPMI SDAM DT bindings
>> >> +
>> >> +maintainers:
>> >> +  - Shyam Kumar Thella <sthella@...eaurora.org>
>> >> +
>> >> +description: |
>> >> +  The SDAM provides scratch register space for the PMIC clients. This
>> >> +  memory can be used by software to store information or communicate
>> >> +  to/from the PBUS.
>> >> +
>> >> +allOf:
>> >> +  - $ref: "nvmem.yaml#"
>> >> +
>> >> +properties:
>> >> +  compatible:
>> >> +    enum:
>> >> +      - qcom,spmi-sdam
>> >> +
>> >> +  reg:
>> >> +    maxItems: 1
>> >> +
>> >> +  "#address-cells":
>> >> +    const: 1
>> >> +
>> >> +  "#size-cells":
>> >> +    const: 1
>> >
>> > ranges? The child addresses should be translateable I assume.
>> The addresses are not memory mapped on the CPU's address domain. They
>> are the SPMI addresses which can be accessed over SPMI controller.
> 
> Doesn't have to be a CPU address. Are the child offsets within the
> range defined in the parent 'reg'? If so, then it should have
> 'ranges'.
Yes the child offsets fall within parent reg's address space.
I will add ranges in the next patch set.
> 
>> >
>> >> +
>> >> +required:
>> >> +  - compatible
>> >> +  - reg
>> >> +
>> >> +patternProperties:
>> >> +  "^.*@[0-9a-f]+$":
>> >> +    type: object
>> >> +
>> >> +    properties:
>> >> +      reg:
>> >> +        maxItems: 1
>> >> +        description:
>> >> +          Offset and size in bytes within the storage device.
>> >> +
>> >> +      bits:
>> >
>> > Needs a type reference.
>> Yes. I will add a reference in the next patch set.
>> >
>> >> +        maxItems: 1
>> >> +        items:
>> >> +          items:
>> >> +            - minimum: 0
>> >> +              maximum: 7
>> >> +              description:
>> >> +                Offset in bit within the address range specified by
>> >> reg.
>> >> +            - minimum: 1
>> >
>> > max is 7?
>> I don't think it is limited to 7 as it is the size within the address
>> range specified by reg. If the address range is more than a byte size
>> can be more.
> 
> Then why is the maximum offset 7?
I see. Offset can be more than 7 within the address range specified in 
case
of data cells with more than a byte. I will remove maximum in the next
patch set.
> 
> Rob