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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 4 Nov 2022 14:57:40 +0900
From:   Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 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 2022/11/03 1:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 01/11/2022 05:02, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
> 
> 
>>>> +				compatible = "socionext,uniphier-nx1-clock";
>>>> +				#clock-cells = <1>;
>>>> +			};
>>>> +
>>>> +			sys_rst: reset {
>>>
>>> reset-controller
>>>
>>>> +				compatible = "socionext,uniphier-nx1-reset";
>>>> +				#reset-cells = <1>;
>>>> +			};
>>>> +
>>>> +			watchdog {
>>>> +				compatible = "socionext,uniphier-wdt";
>>>> +			};
>>>> +
>>>> +			pvtctl: thermal-sensor {
>>>> +				compatible = "socionext,uniphier-nx1-thermal";
>>>> +				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>>> +				#thermal-sensor-cells = <0>;
>>>> +				socionext,tmod-calibration = <0x0f22 0x68ee>;
>>>> +			};
>>>> +		};
>>>> +
>>>> +		spi0: spi@...06000 {
>>>> +			compatible = "socionext,uniphier-scssi";
>>>> +			status = "disabled";
>>>> +			reg = <0x14006000 0x100>;
>>>
>>> Reg is second property. Status goes last. The same in other nodes.
>>
>> Hmm, I've put "status" here according to the existing (uniphier's) DT
>> policy
>> and this should rewrite the policy. Is there documentation somewhere that
>> recommends the order? Or, should I refer to previous comments?
> 
> Hm, your decision (as arch maintainer) is then preferred, not mine.
> Although it is quite unusual to find status, not reg, as the second
> property.

Okay, however, if there are no examples where the second is "status",
I think it is better to follow the many descriptions for new additions.

> compatible followed by reg is not documented anywhere, it's just the
> most used style. And actually most sensible as it answers to questions
> from highest importance to lowest:
> 1. What is this device? compatible
> 2. Where is it? Does it match unit address? reg
> 3. all other properties
> 4. Is it off or on? status as optional property

I think it is reasonable to arrange the properties in order of importance.
I'll put "reg" second in this addition in the next.

Thank you,

---
Best Regards
Kunihiko Hayashi