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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 16:42:36 +0300 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> To: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...labora.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com> Cc: kernel@...labora.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: dts: imx8mp-msc-sm2s: Add device trees for MSC SM2S-IMX8PLUS SoM and carrier board On 12/08/2022 14:35, Martyn Welch wrote: > On Fri, 2022-08-12 at 12:47 +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 12/08/2022 11:41, Martyn Welch wrote: >>> Add device trees for one of a number of MSC's (parent company, >>> Avnet) >>> variants of the SM2S-IMX8PLUS system on module along with the >>> compatible >>> SM2S-SK-AL-EP1 carrier board. As the name suggests, this family of >>> SoMs use >>> the NXP i.MX8MP SoC and provide the SMARC module interface. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...labora.com> >>> --- >>> >>> Changes in v2 >>> - Added compatibles >>> - Removed underscores from node names >>> - Make node names more generic >>> - Reorder properties >>> - Fix issues found by dtbs_check in these files >>> >>> Changes in v3: >>> - Switched to avnet vendor string in compatibles >>> - Corrected patch description >>> >>> Changes in v4: >>> - Switched from phy-reset-gpios to reset-gpios, removing >>> duplication >>> - Removed unneeded sdma1 node >>> >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile | 1 + >>> .../freescale/imx8mp-msc-sm2s-14N0600E.dts | 72 ++ >>> .../dts/freescale/imx8mp-msc-sm2s-ep1.dts | 53 ++ >>> .../boot/dts/freescale/imx8mp-msc-sm2s.dtsi | 812 >>> ++++++++++++++++++ >>> 4 files changed, 938 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mp-msc-sm2s- >>> 14N0600E.dts >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mp-msc-sm2s- >>> ep1.dts >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mp-msc- >>> sm2s.dtsi >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile >>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile >>> index 8bf7f7ecebaa..139c8b95c9c9 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/Makefile >>> @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx8mn-venice- >>> gw7902.dtb >>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx8mp-dhcom-pdk2.dtb >>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx8mp-evk.dtb >>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx8mp-icore-mx8mp-edimm2.2.dtb >>> +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx8mp-msc-sm2s-ep1.dtb >>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx8mp-phyboard-pollux-rdk.dtb >>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx8mp-tqma8mpql-mba8mpxl.dtb >>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) += imx8mp-venice-gw74xx.dtb >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mp-msc-sm2s- >>> 14N0600E.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mp-msc-sm2s- >>> 14N0600E.dts >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..9e976e8baaee >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mp-msc-sm2s-14N0600E.dts >>> @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ >>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>> +/* >>> + * Copyright (C) 2022 Avnet Embedded GmbH >>> + */ >>> +/dts-v1/; >>> + >>> +#include "imx8mp-msc-sm2s.dtsi" >>> + >>> +/ { >>> + model = "MSC SM2S-IMX8PLUS-QC6-14N0600E SoM"; >>> + compatible = "avnet,sm2s-imx8mp-14N0600E", "avnet,sm2s- >>> imx8mp", >>> + "fsl,imx8mp"; >> >> This does not match your bindings. Please test your DTS. >> > > Hi Krzysztof, > > I'm not sure I follow. This is the DTS for the SoM. SoMs usually do not have DTSes because they cannot be run on their own. SoMs almost always require a baseboard/carrier. Therefore this should not be DTS, but that was not my comment. > The only way I can > test the SoM at the moment is on combination with the "EP1" carrier > board. ... so you basically say it cannot be a DTS. > That has been tested. The strings match those specified in the > bindings unless I'm being blind to something. Test the DTS - make dtbs_check (there are several variations/arguments/helpers): Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst > > I guess I can build the DTB for just the SoM But you just did it, didn't you? This is a DTS. > and boot with that or > thinking about it, rename this as a .dtsi, given that it's unlikely > that anyone is going to have a carrier barebones enough that it could > be considered just the SoM? Anyway, I wanted DT bindings tests for DTS. Not actual tests on hardware, because the compatibles do not matter in that aspect. Best regards, Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists