linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: gpio: add support for NXP S32G2/S32G3 SoCs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e6u3kui5md4km5xvjzlq5cfgwvtb73c763uep4j5ysaokmmucr@gz5nxiebg7gu>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 23:04:22 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrei Stefanescu <andrei.stefanescu@....nxp.com>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Chester Lin <chester62515@...il.com>, 
	Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@...e.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	NXP S32 Linux Team <s32@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] dt-bindings: gpio: add support for NXP
 S32G2/S32G3 SoCs

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 10:58:46PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 03:40:31PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 20/09/2024 15:33, Andrei Stefanescu wrote:
> > > Hi Conor,
> > > 
> > > Thank you for your review!
> > > 
> > > On 20/09/2024 15:46, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 04:47:22PM +0300, Andrei Stefanescu wrote:
> > >>> Add support for the GPIO driver of the NXP S32G2/S32G3 SoCs.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Phu Luu An <phu.luuan@....com>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@....com>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@....com>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Andrei Stefanescu <andrei.stefanescu@....nxp.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>  .../bindings/gpio/nxp,s32g2-siul2-gpio.yaml   | 107 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>  1 file changed, 107 insertions(+)
> > >>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/nxp,s32g2-siul2-gpio.yaml
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/nxp,s32g2-siul2-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/nxp,s32g2-siul2-gpio.yaml
> > >>> new file mode 100644
> > >>> index 000000000000..0548028e6745
> > >>> --- /dev/null
> > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/nxp,s32g2-siul2-gpio.yaml
> > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
> > >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause
> > >>> +# Copyright 2024 NXP
> > >>> +%YAML 1.2
> > >>> +---
> > >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/gpio/nxp,s32g2-siul2-gpio.yaml#
> > >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > >>> +
> > >>> +title: NXP S32G2 SIUL2 GPIO controller
> > >>> +
> > >>> +maintainers:
> > >>> +  - Ghennadi Procopciuc <Ghennadi.Procopciuc@....com>
> > >>> +  - Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@....com>
> > >>> +  - Andrei Stefanescu <andrei.stefanescu@....nxp.com>
> > >>> +
> > >>> +description:
> > >>> +  Support for the SIUL2 GPIOs found on the S32G2 and S32G3
> > >>> +  chips. It includes an IRQ controller for all pins which have
> > >>> +  an EIRQ associated.
> > >>> +
> > >>> +properties:
> > >>> +  compatible:
> > >>> +    items:
> > >>> +      - const: nxp,s32g2-siul2-gpio
> > >>
> > >> Commit message and binding description say s32g2 and s32g3, but there's
> > >> only a compatible here for g2.
> > > 
> > > Yes, the SIUL2 GPIO hardware is the same for both S32G2 and S32G3 SoCs. I plan
> > > to reuse the same compatible when I add the SIUL2 GPIO device tree node for
> > > the S32G3 boards. Would that be ok?
> > 
> > There are only few exceptions where re-using compatible is allowed. Was
> > S32G on them? Please consult existing practice/maintainers and past reviews.

Just in case this was not clear - comment "please consult existing..."
was towards Andrei, not you Conor.

> 
> Pretty sure I had a similar conversation about another peripheral on
> these devices, and it was established that these are not different fusings
> etc, but rather are independent SoCs that reuse an IP core. Given that,
> I'd expect to see a fallback compatible used here, as is the norm.

Yep.

Best regards,
Krzysztof