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: <82e7e3a78f784b3ad63094c8a0ab1932@manjaro.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 13:37:11 +0200
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
To: Yao Zi <ziyao@...root.org>
Cc: 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>, Ondrej Jirman
 <megi@....cz>, 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 2024-08-05 12:59, Yao Zi wrote:
> 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?

I find "xin24m: clock-xin24m { }" better, because keeping the "xin24m"
part in /sys listing(s), for example, can only be helpful.