linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: qcom: geni-se: Fix '#address-cells' & '#size-cells' related dt-binding error

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: <b9aa6d30-5fe8-57a9-e478-c99bca70d185@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 08:53:26 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bhupesh.linux@...il.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: qcom: geni-se: Fix '#address-cells' &
 '#size-cells' related dt-binding error

On 15/01/2023 22:33, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 at 20:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/01/2023 21:10, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>>> Fix the following '#address-cells' & '#size-cells' related
>>> dt-binding error:
>>>
>>>    $ make dtbs_check
>>>
>>>    From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml
>>>         arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm4250-oneplus-billie2.dtb: geniqup@...0000:
>>>               #address-cells:0:0: 2 was expected
>>>       From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml
>>
>> Don't we want rather to unify the soc address range?
> 
> Well, the assumption in the original dt-bindings was that every reg
> variable is 4 * u32 wide (as most new qcom SoCs set #address- and
> #size-cells to <2>). However, that is not the case for all of the
> SoCs.

Hm, which device of that SoC cannot be used with address/size cells 2?
> 
> So, ideally we shouldn't set the  "#address-cells" and  "#size-cells":
> as const: 2 in the bindings.
> 
> See as an example:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb-device.yaml


How USB device - so entirely different device, not MMIO! - is related here?

Best regards,
Krzysztof