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: <2429972.SyXcmblsem@diego>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:21:25 +0200
From: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: 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>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
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

Am Dienstag, 13. August 2024, 18:38:58 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 04/08/2024 16:05, 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.
> 
> One more comment, I forgot we actually have it documented long time ago:
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst#L90

Thanks for finding that block.

I guess we'll follow that advice then and go with a soc node :-) .


Heiko