linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: dts: uniphier: Add NX1 SoC and boards support

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]

Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:01:15 +0200
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Kunihiko Hayashi" <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        "Olof Johansson" <olof@...om.net>,
        "Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     soc@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: dts: uniphier: Add NX1 SoC and boards support

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022, at 06:51, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
> Initial version of devicetree sources for NX1 SoC and boards.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>

Can you add more information here? When new SoCs get added, I
usually provide more than this in my own pull requests sending
the patches to Linus, so please add some background here, such as:

- is this a new SoC, or or something that has been around for a while
  and only now gets upstreamed?

- What is the target market for this SoC? Are there any products
  one can buy with it?

- What type of CPU cores does it use, or any other noteworthy
  IP blocks that are relevant for its purpose?

> +			usb_hsphy0: hs-phy@200 {
> +				compatible = "socionext,uniphier-nx1-usb3-hsphy";
> +				reg = <0x200 0x10>;

> +			usb_ssphy0: ss-phy@300 {
> +				compatible = "socionext,uniphier-nx1-usb3-ssphy";
> +				reg = <0x300 0x10>;

I think these are usually just named 'phy@' instead of 'hs-phy@'

> +			ranges =
> +			/* downstream I/O */
> +				<0x81000000 0 0x00000000 0x0ffe0000 0 0x00010000>,
> +			/* non-prefetchable memory */
> +				<0x82000000 0 0x20000000 0x04200000 0 0x0bde0000>;

200MB of memory space is rather small, is there no 64-bit range?

> +			#interrupt-cells = <1>;
> +			interrupt-names = "dma", "msi";
> +			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 84 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> +				     <GIC_SPI 85 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> +			interrupt-map-mask = <0 0 0 7>;
> +			interrupt-map = <0 0 0 1 &pcie_intc 0>,	/* INTA */
> +					<0 0 0 2 &pcie_intc 1>,	/* INTB */
> +					<0 0 0 3 &pcie_intc 2>,	/* INTC */
> +					<0 0 0 4 &pcie_intc 3>;	/* INTD */
> +			phy-names = "pcie-phy";
> +			phys = <&pcie_phy>;
> +
> +			pcie_intc: legacy-interrupt-controller {
> +				interrupt-controller;
> +				#interrupt-cells = <1>;
> +				interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
> +				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 86 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> +			};
> +		};

Shouldn't there be an "msi-map" or "msi-parent" property pointing at
the GIC?

   Arnd