| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CABGWkvpBHFUx_KHKxeL2sEK8bO7=+3HCUAgJM7zphM3q7soczg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 09:20:35 +0200
From: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Amarula patchwork <linux-amarula@...rulasolutions.com>,
michael@...rulasolutions.com,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
Dario Binacchi <dariobin@...ero.it>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: net: can: add STM32 bxcan DT bindings
Hi Krzysztof,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 7:39 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 20/08/2022 11:08, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 10:22 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/08/2022 17:35, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> >>> Add documentation of device tree bindings for the STM32 basic extended
> >>> CAN (bxcan) controller.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dariobin@...ero.it>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>
> >>
> >> You do not need two SoBs. Keep only one, matching the From field.
> >
> > I started implementing this driver in my spare time, so my intention
> > was to keep track of it.
>
> SoB is not related to copyrights. Keep personal copyrights (with/next to
> work ones), but SoB is coming from a person and that's only one. Choose
> one "person".
Ok, I got it.
>
> >
> >>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> .../devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml | 139 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+)
> >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 000000000000..f4cfd26e4785
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
> >>
> >> File name like compatible, so st,stm32-bxcan-core.yaml (or some other
> >> name, see comment later)
> >
> >>
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
> >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> >>> +%YAML 1.2
> >>> +---
> >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml#
> >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> >>> +
> >>> +title: STMicroelectronics bxCAN controller Device Tree Bindings
> >>
> >> s/Device Tree Bindings//
> >
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> +description: STMicroelectronics BxCAN controller for CAN bus
> >>> +
> >>> +maintainers:
> >>> + - Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>
> >>> +
> >>> +allOf:
> >>> + - $ref: can-controller.yaml#
> >>> +
> >>> +properties:
> >>> + compatible:
> >>> + enum:
> >>> + - st,stm32-bxcan-core
> >>
> >> compatibles are supposed to be specific. If this is some type of
> >> micro-SoC, then it should have its name/number. If it is dedicated
> >> device, is the final name bxcan core? Google says the first is true, so
> >> you miss specific device part.
> >
> > I don't know if I understand correctly, I hope the change in version 2
> > is what you requested.
>
> What is the name of the SoC, where this is in?
STM32F4
>
> >
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + reg:
> >>> + maxItems: 1
> >>> +
> >>> + resets:
> >>> + maxItems: 1
> >>> +
> >>> + clocks:
> >>> + description:
> >>> + Input clock for registers access
> >>> + maxItems: 1
> >>> +
> >>> + '#address-cells':
> >>> + const: 1
> >>> +
> >>> + '#size-cells':
> >>> + const: 0
> >>> +
> >>> +required:
> >>> + - compatible
> >>> + - reg
> >>> + - resets
> >>> + - clocks
> >>> + - '#address-cells'
> >>> + - '#size-cells'
> >>> +
> >>> +additionalProperties: false
> >>> +
> >>> +patternProperties:
> >>
> >> This goes after "properties: in top level (before "required").
> >>
> >>> + "^can@[0-9]+$":
> >>> + type: object
> >>> + description:
> >>> + A CAN block node contains two subnodes, representing each one a CAN
> >>> + instance available on the machine.
> >>> +
> >>> + properties:
> >>> + compatible:
> >>> + enum:
> >>> + - st,stm32-bxcan
> >>
> >> Why exactly do you need compatible for the child? Is it an entierly
> >> separate device?
> >
> > I took inspiration from other drivers for ST microcontroller
> > peripherals (e. g. drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc-core.c,
> > drivers/iio/adc/stm32-adc.c) where
> > some resources are shared between the peripheral instances. In the
> > case of CAN, master (CAN1) and slave (CAN2) share the registers for
> > configuring the filters and the clock.
> > In the core module you can find the functions about the shared
> > resources, while the childrens implement the driver.
>
> In both cases you refer to the driver, but we talk here about bindings
> which are rather not related. So I repeat the question - is the child
> entirely separate device which can be used in other devices?
IMHO, I think so.
Thanks and regards,
Dario
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
--
Dario Binacchi
Embedded Linux Developer
dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com
__________________________________
Amarula Solutions SRL
Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT
T. +39 042 243 5310
info@...rulasolutions.com
www.amarulasolutions.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists