linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] dt-binding: phy: hisi-inno-usb2: 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:
 <SEZPR06MB695983231D04A2E1947AF61896532@SEZPR06MB6959.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 18:54:51 +0800
From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@...look.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
 Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Jiancheng Xue <xuejiancheng@...ilicon.com>,
 Pengcheng Li <lpc.li@...ilicon.com>, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
 David Yang <mmyangfl@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] dt-binding: phy: hisi-inno-usb2: convert to YAML

On 2/17/2024 6:29 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/02/2024 11:24, Yang Xiwen wrote:
>
>>>> +
>>>> +examples:
>>>> +  - |
>>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +    peripheral-controller@...0000 {
>>>> +        compatible = "hisilicon,hi3798cv200-perictrl", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
>>>> +        reg = <0x8a20000 0x1000>;
>>>> +        #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> +        #size-cells = <1>;
>>>> +        ranges = <0x0 0x8a20000 0x1000>;
>>> Drop the node, not related to this binding. If this binding is supposed
>>> to be part of other device in case of MFD devices or some tightly
>>> coupled ones, then could be included in the example there.
>> For CV200, this binding is supposed to be always inside the perictrl
>> device. The PHY address space are accessed from a bus implemented by
>> perictrl.
> Every node is supposes to be somewhere in something, so with this logic
> you would start from soc@. What's wrong in putting it in parent schema?

When the ports reg property only has an dummy address (no size), it must 
be inside the perictrl node, accessed from the bus implemented by perictrl.

But when the ports has its own MMIO address space (mv200), it should be 
located under a simple-bus node instead.

So it's either:

perictrl@...0000 {

     usb2-phy@120: {

         reg = <0x120 0x4>; // this is the register that controls writes 
and reads to the phy, implemented by perictrl. (just like SPI/I2C)

         phy@0: {

             reg = <0>; // the reg is used as an index

         };

     };

};

or:

soc@0 {

     usb2-phy@...65000 { // MMIO

         reg = <0xf9865000 0x1000>

         port0@0 {

             reg = <0x0 0x400>; // used as MMIO address space

         };

     };

};

So here is why i include perictrl node in the example. If the ports are 
not mmio, the phy must be under a perictrl node. Or if the ports has its 
own address space, it should not be under a perictrl node, but rather an 
simple-bus node.

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

-- 
Regards,
Yang Xiwen