linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: timer: Add bindings for Intel Keem Bay SoC Timer

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, 14 Jul 2021 17:20:52 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     shruthi.sanil@...el.com,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, kris.pan@...ux.intel.com,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        srikanth.thokala@...el.com,
        "Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi Bai" 
        <lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@...el.com>,
        mallikarjunappa.sangannavar@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: timer: Add bindings for Intel Keem
 Bay SoC Timer

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 08:07:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:04 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:47:56PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:44:09AM +0530, shruthi.sanil@...el.com wrote:
> >
> > > > +  The parent node represents the common general configuration details and
> > > > +  the child nodes represents the counter and timers.
> > >
> > > I don't think all the child nodes are necessary. Are the counters and
> > > timers configurable (say on another SoC)? If not, then a single node
> > > here would suffice.
> >
> > If you may notice the children may have different properties that can't be
> > known ahead, such as IRQ line. On some platforms it may be this mapping, on
> > another it maybe different.
> 
> What I noticed is it's all the same clock and 1 interrupt for each
> timer can be just a single 'interrupts' property with 8 entries.

This may work.

> Is there a platform that's different or that's a hypothetical? Because
> hypothetically, every aspect of every IP could change. But we don't
> try to parameterize everything in DT. It's a judgement call between
> implying things from compatible and explicit DT properties.
> 
> > With all respect for the simplification I think we can't do it here.
> 
> You can. Any data in DT could be in the kernel. It's a question of
> balance, not can or can't.

Not only, it's also matters of what exactly hardware is: 8 timers or timer with
8 channels. If it's the former one, I prefer to have DT exactly like originally
suggested, otherwise I will agree on your proposal.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko