linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: Add support for bcm74110

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e0e7952b-a308-4fb7-8af6-d4802e7a5080@broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 11:44:40 -0700
From: Justin Chen <justin.chen@...adcom.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: florian.fainelli@...adcom.com, conor+dt@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 robh@...nel.org, jassisinghbrar@...il.com,
 bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: Add support for bcm74110



On 4/7/25 11:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/04/2025 22:57, Justin Chen wrote:
> 
> 
>> from v2 of my patch was copied from said generated DTS.
>>
>> Apologies as I navigate through the different yaml keywords here. The HW
>> isn't changing, I am just struggling with representing the HW using the
>> different keywords. And the different implications of using said keywords.
>>
>> Here is what I have for v4.
>>        items:
>>          - description: RX doorbell and watermark interrupts
>>          - description: TX doorbell and watermark interrupts
>> +    description:
>> +      RX interrupts are required to notify the host of pending messages. TX
>> +      interrupts are optional. The TX doorbell interrupt is not used by the
>> +      host, but watermark interrupts may be used to notify a host
>> waiting on
>> +      a full out queue.
> What does it mean optional? Board decides on SoC connections? Given SoC
> is fixed isn't it?
> 

Maybe I misunderstand optional here. We have optional from the SoC 
perspective and optional from a driver perspective. I was thinking if we 
have a HW feature that the software may choose to use, it is considered 
optional. If that is not the correct understanding, I can make 
adjustments. I will remove minItems, which from understanding, means 
both IRQs are required.

Thanks,
Justin

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof