linux-kernel - Re: Aw: Re: [RFC/RFT 1/6] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip: add pcie3 phy

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:   Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:43:13 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>
Cc:     Frank Wunderlich <linux@...web.de>,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>,
        Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
        Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>,
        linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [RFC/RFT 1/6] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip: add pcie3 phy

On 19/04/2022 19:49, Frank Wunderlich wrote:
>> The list should be strictly ordered (defined), so:
>>   items:
>>     - const: ...
>>     - const: ...
>>     - const: ...
>>   minItems: 1
>>
>> However the question is - why the clocks have different amount? Is it
>> per different SoC implementation?
> 
> i only know the rk3568, which needs the clocks defined here, don't know about rk3588 yet.
> in rk3568 TPM i have the pcie-part seems missing (at least the specific register definition), so i had used the driver as i got it from the downstream kernel.
> 
> not yet looked if i find a rk3588 TPM and if this part is there as i cannot test it (one of the reasons this is a rfc/rft).

You can skip RK3588 compatible or define it this strictly also for that
chip.

> 
>>> +
>>> +  "#phy-cells":
>>> +    const: 0
>>> +
>>> +  resets:
>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> +  reset-names:
>>> +    const: phy
>>> +
>>> +  rockchip,phy-grf:
>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>>> +    description: phandle to the syscon managing the phy "general register files"
>>> +
>>> +  rockchip,pipe-grf:
>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>>> +    description: phandle to the syscon managing the pipe "general register files"
>>> +
>>> +  rockchip,pcie30-phymode:
>>> +    $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32'
>>> +    description: |
>>> +      use PHY_MODE_PCIE_AGGREGATION if not defined
>>
>> I don't understand the description. Do you mean here a case when the
>> variable is missing?
> 
> yes, if the property is not set, then value is PHY_MODE_PCIE_AGGREGATION = 4

Then just use "default: 4"

> 
>>> +    minimum: 0x0
>>> +    maximum: 0x4
>>
>> Please explain these values. Register values should not be part of
>> bindings, but instead some logical behavior of hardware or its logic.
> 
> it's a bitmask, so maybe
> 
>     description: |
>       bit0: bifurcation for port 0
>       bit1: bifurcation for port 1
>       bit2: aggregation

That's good. I got impression you have a header with these values. If
yes - mention it here.

>       use PHY_MODE_PCIE_AGGREGATION (4) as default

Just use default as I wrote above.

Best regards,
Krzysztof