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: <ZrCwrWjRgvE0RS98@ziyaolaptop.my.domain>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:59:57 +0800
From: Yao Zi <ziyao@...root.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	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 Sun, Aug 04, 2024 at 04:05:24PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/08/2024 15:20, Yao Zi 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?
> > 
> > Just as Heiko says, device tree for all other Rockchip SoCs don't have
> > a "soc" node. I didn't know why before but just follow the style.
> > 
> > If you prefer add a soc node, I am willing to.
> 
> Surprising as usually we expect MMIO nodes being part of SoC to be under
> soc@, but if that's Rockchip preference then fine.
> 

Okay, then I would leave it as is.

For the fixed-clock node, I think "xin24m: clock-24m { }" is okay and
follows the new rule?

Best regards,
Yao Zi