linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: phy-stm32-usbphyc: add optional phy tuning properties

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: <491ab475-e7dc-eb71-85aa-6d82543b74db@foss.st.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 08:51:11 +0200
From:   Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay@...s.st.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: phy-stm32-usbphyc: add optional
 phy tuning properties

Hi Rob,

On 10/6/21 12:45 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2021 17:24:52 +0200, Amelie Delaunay wrote:
>> This patch adds the description of new optional phy tuning properties
>> for usbphyc phy sub nodes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...s.st.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - st,phy-tuning property removed
>> - tuning properties are now put directly in each child node
>> - tuning properties are no more free form text and their name reworked
>> ---
>>   .../bindings/phy/phy-stm32-usbphyc.yaml       | 126 ++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 126 insertions(+)
>>
> 
> Running 'make dtbs_check' with the schema in this patch gives the
> following warnings. Consider if they are expected or the schema is
> incorrect. These may not be new warnings.
> 
> Note that it is not yet a requirement to have 0 warnings for dtbs_check.
> This will change in the future.
> 
> Full log is available here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1536730
> 
> 
> usbphyc@...06000: usb-phy@0: 'phy-supply' is a required property
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-lxa-mc1.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-odyssey.dt.yaml
> 
> usbphyc@...06000: usb-phy@1: 'phy-supply' is a required property
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-ctouch2.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-icore-stm32mp1-edimm2.2.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157a-microgea-stm32mp1-microdev2.0-of7.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-lxa-mc1.dt.yaml
> 	arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c-odyssey.dt.yaml
> 

These warnings are due to the fact that usbphyc parent node is disabled 
in parent device tree (stm32mp151.dtsi) but not the "usb-phy" child 
nodes. These warnings are not introduced by this current patch "optional 
phy tuning properties" but anyway. The device trees mentioned don't 
enable usbphyc, so they don't have to set phy-supply in usbphyc child nodes.

$ git diff arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi 
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
index bd289bf5d269..abef8b6be40a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
@@ -1507,11 +1507,13 @@ usbphyc: usbphyc@...06000 {
                         usbphyc_port0: usb-phy@0 {
                                 #phy-cells = <0>;
                                 reg = <0>;
+                               status = "disabled";
                         };

                         usbphyc_port1: usb-phy@1 {
                                 #phy-cells = <1>;
                                 reg = <1>;
+                               status = "disabled";
                         };
                 };

Disable child nodes while parent node is already disabled fixes the 
warning. But it means to add status = "okay"; in child nodes everywhere 
usbphyc is enabled.
Is it normal dtbs_check checks in child nodes when parent node is disabled?

Regards,
Amelie