linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: dma: fsl-edma: allow 'power-domains' property

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: <885501b5-0364-48bd-bc1d-3bc486d1b4c6@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:59:39 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
Cc: conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 peng.fan@....com, robh@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: dma: fsl-edma: allow 'power-domains'
 property

On 01/03/2024 22:45, Frank Li wrote:
> Allow 'power-domains' property because i.MX8DXL i.MX8QM and i.MX8QXP need
> it.
> 
> Fixed below DTB_CHECK warning:
>   dma-controller@...f0000: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('power-domains' was unexpected)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>     Change from v1 to v2
>     - using maxitem: 64. Each channel have one power domain. Max 64 dmachannel.
>     - add power-domains to 'required' when compatible string is fsl,imx8qm-adma
>     or fsl,imx8qm-edma
> 
>  .../devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml         | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml
> index cf0aa8e6b9ec3..76c1716b8b95c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,edma.yaml
> @@ -59,6 +59,10 @@ properties:
>      minItems: 1
>      maxItems: 2
>  
> +  power-domains:
> +    minItems: 1
> +    maxItems: 64

Hm, this is odd. Blocks do not belong to almost infinite number of power
domains.

Best regards,
Krzysztof