linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: add missing i2c nodes

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: <1fb41bd1-815e-d82a-ccff-97e88a5707ae@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Dec 2022 14:05:11 +0100
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>, andersson@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, quic_shazhuss@...cinc.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, johan+linaro@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ahalaney@...hat.com,
        echanude@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: add missing i2c nodes



On 23.12.2022 14:05, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 01:42:32PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 23.12.2022 11:37, Johan Hovold wrote:
>  
>>>> +			i2c16: i2c@...000 {
>>>> +				compatible = "qcom,geni-i2c";
>>>> +				reg = <0 0x00880000 0 0x4000>;
>>>> +				clocks = <&gcc GCC_QUPV3_WRAP2_S0_CLK>;
>>>> +				clock-names = "se";
>>>> +				interrupts = <GIC_SPI 373 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>>> +				#address-cells = <1>;
>>>> +				#size-cells = <0>;
>>>
>>> I'm aware that the two current i2c nodes has these two properties here
>>> in the middle, but would you mind moving '#address-cells' and
>>> '#size-cells' after 'reg' instead where I'd expect them to be?
> 
>> Hm.. we've been sticking them somewhere near the end for the longest
>> time for every bus-like, or generally "i have childen" type node..
>> I see it's a rather mixed bag in non-qcom SoCs, people just seem to
>> put it wherever they please.. The dt spec doesn't seem to mention any
>> preference fwiw.
> 
> The rationale for placing them under 'reg' is that you keep the
> address-related properties together (e.g. 'reg', '#address-cells',
> '#size-cells' and 'ranges').
Okay, I see the point.

Konrad
> 
> Johan