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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZeXnpln7y1T4QBMd@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 10:24:22 -0500
From: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
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 Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 08:23:20AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/03/2024 04:26, Frank Li wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 08:55:10AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 02/03/2024 17:47, Frank Li wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 05:43:01PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 02/03/2024 17:39, Frank Li wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 05:20:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 02/03/2024 16:42, Frank Li wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 02:59:39PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sorry, what's your means? 'power-domains' belong to 'properties'. 
> >>>>>>> 'maxItems' belong to 'power-domains'.It is similar with 'clocks'. what's
> >>>>>>> wrong? 
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That one device belong to 64 power domains. That's just random code...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, each dma channel have one power domain. Total 64 dma channel. So
> >>>>> there are 64 power-domains.
> >>>>
> >>>> OK, then how about extending the example to be complete?
> >>>
> >>> Let's add 8qxp example at next version.
> >>
> >> You have already enough of examples there and your change here claims
> >> they user power domains, so why this cannot be added to existing examples?
> > 
> > Only imx8qxp/8qm need power-domains now. The example in yaml is vf610, 7ulp
> 
> Need? Hardware is either part of power domain or not. It's not dual-state.
> 
> > and imx93. If add power-domains at existed example, it will mislead reader.
> 
> Then please disallow the domains for other variants. You can convert
> imx93 to imx95 example, because it's no different than other one. There
> is little point in putting so many same examples in the binding. You are
> just duplicating DTS.

both imx93 and imx95 have not power domain now. Do you means 'imx95' as
'imx8qxp' ?

Frank?

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>