linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add base DT for rk3528 SoC

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: <6bba3607-04c6-4d6d-942c-21859bfa9b74@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 16:09:09 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
 Yao Zi <ziyao@...root.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Chris Morgan <macromorgan@...mail.com>,
 Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, Tim Lunn <tim@...thertop.org>,
 Andy Yan <andyshrk@....com>, Muhammed Efe Cetin <efectn@...tonmail.com>,
 Jagan Teki <jagan@...eble.ai>, Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>,
 Ondrej Jirman <megi@....cz>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add base DT for rk3528 SoC

On 04/08/2024 14:49, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> 
>>> +		compatible = "fixed-clock";
>>> +		#clock-cells = <0>;
>>> +		clock-frequency = <24000000>;
>>> +		clock-output-names = "xin24m";
>>> +	};
>>> +
>>> +	gic: interrupt-controller@...01000 {
>>
>> Why this all is outside of SoC?
> 
> I guess you mean outside of a "soc {}" node?
> 
> Here the rk3528 simply follows all other Rockchip SoCs :-) .
> 
> Digging into the history, the first rk3066a and initial rk3288 submission
> did use a soc {} node, which later got removed as suggested by arm-soc
> maintainers at the time [0].
> 
> I guess that changed since then?

Well, referenced patch was mixing MMIO with non-MMIO, so Olof's comment
could be understood that this is not correct approach. Even though DT
spec shows examples of "soc", it is not required. But then how do you
implement any ordering? By name or by unit address?

IOW, I think this is the only platform not using "soc" nodes.

Best regards,
Krzysztof