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: <4280f460-7963-10f0-a815-4bb1b62a62fe@microchip.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:34:36 +0000
From:   <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To:     <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, <andre.przywara@....com>
CC:     <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, <samuel@...lland.org>, <wens@...e.org>,
        <linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
        <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <heiko@...ech.de>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] riscv: dts: allwinner: Add the D1 SoC base
 devicetree

On 16/08/2022 12:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> 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./

FWIW this is what the PolarFire SoC stuff does (thanks to either
yourself or Geert) & it'd be nice to continue that precedence for
riscv dts going forward. No point IMO in duplicating things done
in the past in arch/arm if that's now considered bad practice.