linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/12] riscv: dts: allwinner: Add the D1 SoC base 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <14753794-245a-7b27-3bd9-46b80666b7af@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 16 Aug 2022 14:12:25 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cc:     Jernej Škrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] riscv: dts: allwinner: Add the D1 SoC base
 devicetree

On 16/08/2022 14:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> I think one reason might be that this is so central to the whole SoC
>> operation, that it's already referenced multiple times in the base .dtsi.
>> And having a yet unresolved reference in the .dtsi looks dodgy.
>>
>> NVidia seems to omit a base oscillator (maybe it's implicit in their
>> binding design), Marvell doesn't use a fixed-clock (but still puts their
>> base clock in armada-37xx.dtsi).
>>
>> Exynos and Renesas put a *stub* fixed-clock in the .dtsi, and set the
>> frequency in the board .dts files. Would this be a compromise?
> 
> This is exactly what I said before. The clock frequency is a property of
> the board. Feel free to keep the rest of the clock in the SoC DTSI to
> reduce duplication, but at minimum the clock should go to the board.


s/minimum the clock should go to the board/minimum the clock frequency
should go to the board./



Best regards,
Krzysztof