linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: net: Document GBETH bindings for Renesas RZ/V2H(P) 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: <CA+V-a8v9SUur1c7357oWW2kgpLXSvCq3KLk5RgLXbUxBMxMAEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 22:03:20 +0000
From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, 
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>, 
	Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, 
	Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>, 
	Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@...esas.com>, 
	Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: net: Document GBETH bindings for Renesas
 RZ/V2H(P) SoC

On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 9:51 PM Russell King (Oracle)
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 09:49:55PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 09:43:47PM +0000, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 9:39 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> > > > > > Your SoC designer really implemented the 0° and 180° as two separate
> > > > > > independently controllable clocks?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yes there are separate bits to turn ON/OFF the 0° and 180° clocks.
> > > >
> > > > Do you know what the clock tree actually looks like? I can think of
> > > > two different ways this could be implemented:
> > > >
> > > > ----+----------on/off---
> > > >     |
> > > >     +----not---on/off---
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > -------on/off-+------------------
> > > >               |
> > > >               +---not---on/off---
> > > >
> > > > In the first, the clocks are siblings. In the second there is
> > > > parent/child relationship.
> > > >
> > > It's the first case in this SoC.
> >
> > Umm, okay. I'll just pick my jaw up off the floor. :D
> >
> > Given that, then yes, go with your existing clock binding, because
> > that's the most sensible.
> >
> > However, what would be useful for future maintenance is to put some
> > commentry at the top of the new glue file describing this (pictorially)
> > so that when someone looks at this later we know why it is this way.
> > It'll be useful information if someone else does the same because then
> > we can say "hey, we already have a binding for this situation!"
>
> Additionally, it would probably be useful to include it in the dt
> binding commit description because that will probably assist the
> review of that patch.
>
Sure will do that.

Cheers,
Prabhakar