linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] dt-bindings: clocks: atmel,at91rm9200-pmc: convert to yaml

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: <71a1e8de-932d-09a1-efeb-af459fee9423@microchip.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2023 08:31:15 +0000
From:   <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>
To:     <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        <sboyd@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
        <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
CC:     <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] dt-bindings: clocks: atmel,at91rm9200-pmc: convert
 to yaml

On 10.05.2023 10:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 10/05/2023 09:14, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>> On 10.05.2023 10:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On 10/05/2023 09:00, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>>>> On 09.05.2023 09:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/05/2023 07:27, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
>>>>>> Convert Atmel PMC documentation to yaml. Along with it clock names
>>>>>> were adapted according to the current available device trees as
>>>>>> different controller versions accept different clocks (some of them
>>>>>> have 3 clocks as input, some has 2 clocks as inputs and some with 2
>>>>>> input clocks uses different clock names).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve.
>>>>>
>>>>>> +title: Atmel Power Management Controller (PMC)
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>>> +  - Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +description:
>>>>>> +  The power management controller optimizes power consumption by controlling all
>>>>>> +  system and user peripheral clocks. The PMC enables/disables the clock inputs
>>>>>> +  to many of the peripherals and to the processor.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>>> +    oneOf:
>>>>>> +      - items:
>>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9g15-pmc
>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc
>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9g25-pmc
>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9g35-pmc
>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9x25-pmc
>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9x35-pmc
>>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9260-pmc
>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9x5-pmc
>>>>>
>>>>> I missed it last time - why you have two enums? We never talked about
>>>>> this. It's usually wrong... are you sure this is real hardware:
>>>>> atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> I have 2 enums because there are some hardware covered by:
>>>> "vendor-name,hardware-v1-pmc", "syscon" and some covered by:
>>>> "vendor-name,hardware-v2-pmc", "vendor-name,hardware-v1-pmc", "syscon".
>>>
>>> The enum does not say this. At all.
>>>
>>> So again, answer, do not ignore:
>>> is this valid setup:
>>> atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc
>>> ?
>>
>> Not w/o syscon. This is valid:
> 
> Syscon is not important here, but indeed I missed it.
> 
>>
>> compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc", "atmel,at91sam9260-pmc", "syscon";
>>
>> available in arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi +45
> 
> Nice, so my random choice was actually correct. Ok, so another:
> 
> atmel,at91sam9g15-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc, syscon
> 
> Is it valid hardware?

This one, no. So, I guess, the wrong here is that there could be
combinations that are not for actual hardware and yet considered valid by
changes in this patch?

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>