linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: sifive,plic: Document Renesas RZ/Five SoC

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: <59c043a4-dd40-1f6b-69d2-bc32b970e874@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 25 Jun 2022 22:01:38 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Sagar Kadam <sagar.kadam@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: sifive,plic:
 Document Renesas RZ/Five SoC

On 24/06/2022 20:03, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> Document Renesas RZ/Five (R9A07G043) SoC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> ---
> RFC->v1:
> * Fixed Review comments pointed by Geert and Rob
> ---
>  .../sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml                    | 40 +++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml
> index 27092c6a86c4..5eebe0b01b4d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml
> @@ -28,7 +28,10 @@ description:
>  
>    While the PLIC supports both edge-triggered and level-triggered interrupts,
>    interrupt handlers are oblivious to this distinction and therefore it is not
> -  specified in the PLIC device-tree binding.
> +  specified in the PLIC device-tree binding for SiFive PLIC (and similar PLIC's),
> +  but for the Renesas RZ/Five Soc (AX45MP AndesCore) which has NCEPLIC100 we need
> +  to specify the interrupt type as the flow for EDGE interrupts is different
> +  compared to LEVEL interrupts.
>  
>    While the RISC-V ISA doesn't specify a memory layout for the PLIC, the
>    "sifive,plic-1.0.0" device is a concrete implementation of the PLIC that
> @@ -57,6 +60,7 @@ properties:
>            - enum:
>                - allwinner,sun20i-d1-plic
>            - const: thead,c900-plic
> +      - const: renesas,r9a07g043-plic
>  
>    reg:
>      maxItems: 1
> @@ -64,8 +68,7 @@ properties:
>    '#address-cells':
>      const: 0
>  
> -  '#interrupt-cells':
> -    const: 1
> +  '#interrupt-cells': true
>  
>    interrupt-controller: true
>  
> @@ -91,7 +94,36 @@ required:
>    - interrupts-extended
>    - riscv,ndev
>  
> -additionalProperties: false
> +if:

Make it inside allOf. Avoids further indentation change on next variant.

> +  properties:
> +    compatible:
> +      contains:
> +        const: renesas,r9a07g043-plic
> +then:
> +  properties:
> +    clocks:
> +      maxItems: 1
> +
> +    resets:
> +      maxItems: 1
> +
> +    power-domains:
> +      maxItems: 1
> +
> +    '#interrupt-cells':
> +      const: 2
> +
> +  required:
> +    - clocks
> +    - resets
> +    - power-domains
> +
> +else:
> +  properties:
> +    '#interrupt-cells':
> +      const: 1
> +
> +unevaluatedProperties: false


This does not look correct, why changing additional->unevaluated here?


Best regards,
Krzysztof