linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 3/7] arm64: dts: sc7280: Add QUPv3 wrapper

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: <YSf02XebkyqT+8fo@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:08:57 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To:     Rajesh Patil <rajpat@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
        saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org, msavaliy@....qualcomm.com,
        skakit@...eaurora.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
        Roja Rani Yarubandi <rojay@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/7] arm64: dts: sc7280: Add QUPv3 wrapper_0 nodes

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 06:45:27PM +0530, Rajesh Patil wrote:
> From: Roja Rani Yarubandi <rojay@...eaurora.org>
> 
> Add QUPv3 wrapper_0 DT nodes for SC7280 SoC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roja Rani Yarubandi <rojay@...eaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rajesh Patil <rajpat@...eaurora.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 724 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 722 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> index f8dd5ff..da3cf19 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> @@ -434,6 +434,25 @@
>  		};
>  	};
>  
> +	qup_opp_table: qup-opp-table {
> +		compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> +
> +		opp-75000000 {
> +			opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <75000000>;
> +			required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_low_svs>;
> +		};
> +
> +		opp-100000000 {
> +			opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <100000000>;
> +			required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_svs>;
> +		};
> +
> +		opp-128000000 {
> +			opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <128000000>;
> +			required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_nom>;
> +		};
> +	};
> +
>  	soc: soc@0 {
>  		#address-cells = <2>;
>  		#size-cells = <2>;
> @@ -536,24 +555,425 @@
>  		qupv3_id_0: geniqup@...000 {
>  			compatible = "qcom,geni-se-qup";
>  			reg = <0 0x009c0000 0 0x2000>;
> -			clock-names = "m-ahb", "s-ahb";
>  			clocks = <&gcc GCC_QUPV3_WRAP_0_M_AHB_CLK>,
>  				 <&gcc GCC_QUPV3_WRAP_0_S_AHB_CLK>;
> +			clock-names = "m-ahb", "s-ahb";
>  			#address-cells = <2>;
>  			#size-cells = <2>;
>  			ranges;
> +			iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x123 0x0>;
>  			status = "disabled";
>  
> +			i2c0: i2c@...000 {
> +				compatible = "qcom,geni-i2c";
> +				reg = <0 0x00980000 0 0x4000>;
> +				clocks = <&gcc GCC_QUPV3_WRAP0_S0_CLK>;
> +				clock-names = "se";
> +				pinctrl-names = "default";
> +				pinctrl-0 = <&qup_i2c0_data_clk>;
> +				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 601 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> +				#address-cells = <1>;
> +				#size-cells = <0>;
> +				interconnects = <&clk_virt MASTER_QUP_CORE_0 0 &clk_virt SLAVE_QUP_CORE_0 0>,
> +						<&gem_noc MASTER_APPSS_PROC 0 &cnoc2 SLAVE_QUP_0 0>,
> +						<&aggre1_noc MASTER_QUP_0 0 &mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 0>;
> +				interconnect-names = "qup-core", "qup-config",
> +							"qup-memory";
> +				status = "disabled";
> +			};
> +
> +			spi0: spi@...000 {
> +				compatible = "qcom,geni-spi";
> +				reg = <0 0x00980000 0 0x4000>;
> +				clocks = <&gcc GCC_QUPV3_WRAP0_S0_CLK>;
> +				clock-names = "se";
> +				pinctrl-names = "default";
> +				pinctrl-0 = <&qup_spi0_data_clk>, <&qup_spi0_cs>, <&qup_spi0_cs_gpio>;

as per the discussion on v5 (https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/1628754078-29779-4-git-send-email-rajpat@codeaurora.org/)
I remain unconvinced that configuring the CS pin both as CS and GPIO is a good idea.

If you think it is necessary in this case (maybe some kind of quirk?) please
provide a rationale.