linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/14] dt-bindings: fsi: Document the IBM SBEFIFO engine

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]

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:09:34 -0500
From: Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, lakshmiy@...ibm.com, robh@...nel.org,
        krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, joel@....id.au,
        andrew@...econstruct.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/14] dt-bindings: fsi: Document the IBM SBEFIFO
 engine


On 4/26/24 01:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/04/2024 23:36, Eddie James wrote:
>> The SBEFIFO engine provides an interface to the POWER processor
>> Self Boot Engine (SBE).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...econstruct.com.au>
>> ---
>
>> +description:
>> +  The SBEFIFO is an FSI CFAM engine that provides an interface to the
>> +  POWER processor Self Boot Engine (SBE). This node will always be a child
>> +  of an FSI CFAM node; see fsi.txt for details on FSI slave and CFAM
>> +  nodes.
>> +
>> +properties:
>> +  compatible:
>> +    enum:
>> +      - ibm,p9-sbefifo
>> +      - ibm,odyssey-sbefifo
>> +
>> +  reg:
>> +    items:
>> +      - description: FSI slave address
>> +
>> +  "#address-cells":
>> +    const: 1
>> +
>> +  "#size-cells":
>> +    const: 0
>> +
>> +patternProperties:
>> +  "^occ(@.*)?":
> Why unit address is optional?


In this case, it's because we use the reg property (reflecting the unit 
address) to indicate the processor index of the occ node. However I 
think I should drop the unit address here, it's meaningless, there is no 
addressing for the OCC from the SBEFIFO.


>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>