linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] dts: socfpga: Add Google Chameleon v3 devicetree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e4ef2056-c990-b308-a9d5-98f11ac0ba51@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 31 May 2022 11:11:57 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>
Cc:     Paweł Anikiel <pan@...ihalf.com>, soc@...nel.org,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, arnd@...db.de,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, dinguyen@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dts: socfpga: Add Google Chameleon v3 devicetree

On 31/05/2022 03:20, Alexandru M Stan wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof
> 
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:56 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 30/05/2022 15:08, Paweł Anikiel wrote:
>>> Add devicetree for the Google Chameleon v3 board.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paweł Anikiel <pan@...ihalf.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>
>>
>> Your SoB chain looks odd. Who did what here?
> 
> Sorry about this.
> 
> It was mainly Pawel but I did some small changes at some point before
> it landed in our tree (particularly the GPIOs).

Then usually Paweł should be the owner of the patch, not you.
Alternatively it could be also co-developed.

> 
>>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile                    |  1 +
>>>  .../boot/dts/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts  | 90 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 91 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
>>> index 023c8b4ba45c..9417106d3289 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
>>> @@ -1146,6 +1146,7 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_S5PV210) += \
>>>       s5pv210-torbreck.dtb
>>>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_INTEL_SOCFPGA) += \
>>>       socfpga_arria5_socdk.dtb \
>>> +     socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dtb \
>>>       socfpga_arria10_socdk_nand.dtb \
>>>       socfpga_arria10_socdk_qspi.dtb \
>>>       socfpga_arria10_socdk_sdmmc.dtb \
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..988cc445438e
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga_arria10_chameleonv3.dts
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>> +/*
>>> + * Copyright 2022 Google LLC
>>> + */
>>> +/dts-v1/;
>>> +#include "socfpga_arria10_mercury_aa1.dtsi"
>>> +
>>> +/ {
>>> +     model = "Google Chameleon V3";
>>> +     compatible = "google,chameleon-v3",
>>
>> You miss here enclustra compatible.
> 
> Does this make sense? I don't expect this device tree to boot/work on
> an enclustra motherboard. It's only really compatible with a
> "chameleon-v3".

You also do not expect it to boot on altr,socfpga, do you?

If I understood correctly, this board has physically Mercury AA1 SoM, so
that compatible should be there.

It's the same for every other SoM. Neither Google nor Enclustra are
special...

> 
>>
>>> +                  "altr,socfpga-arria10", "altr,socfpga";
>>> +
>>> +     aliases {
>>> +             serial0 = &uart0;
>>> +             i2c0 = &i2c0;
>>> +             i2c1 = &i2c1;
>>> +     };
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&gmac0 {
>>> +     status = "okay";
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&gpio0 {
>>> +     status = "okay";
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&gpio1 {
>>> +     status = "okay";
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&gpio2 {
>>> +     status = "okay";
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&i2c0 {
>>> +     status = "okay";
>>> +
>>> +     ssm2603: ssm2603@1a {
>>
>> Generic node names.
> 
> Dumb question: what does this mean?
> 
> Are you saying the name is too generic? As someone reading the
> schematics this would be immediately clear what chip it's talking
> about.

Let me clarify - please use generic node names, as asked by Devicetree
specification (2.2.1. Node Name Requirements). There is also list of
some examples in the spec, but you can use some other generic node name.

Several bindings also require it.

> 
>>
>>> +             compatible = "adi,ssm2603";
>>> +             reg = <0x1a>;
>>> +     };
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&i2c1 {
>>> +     status = "okay";
>>> +
>>> +     u80: u80@21 {
>>> +             compatible = "nxp,pca9535";
>>
>> Generic node names.
> 
> FWIW: Schematic is full of these pca9535 io expanders, only one (U80)
> is visible to linux on an I2C bus.



Best regards,
Krzysztof