netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 15/15] arm64: dts: allwinner: a64: add SRAM controller device tree node

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]

Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 17:53:21 +0800
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 15/15] arm64: dts: allwinner: a64: add SRAM
 controller device tree node

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:12:27AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> From: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io>
>>
>> Allwinner A64 has a SRAM controller, and in the device tree currently
>> we have a syscon node to enable EMAC driver to access the EMAC clock
>> register. As SRAM controller driver can now export regmap for this
>> register, replace the syscon node to the SRAM controller device node,
>> and let EMAC driver to acquire its EMAC clock regmap.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi | 23 +++++++++++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
>> index 1b2ef28c42bd..1c37659d9d41 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
>> @@ -168,10 +168,25 @@
>>               #size-cells = <1>;
>>               ranges;
>>
>> -             syscon: syscon@...0000 {
>> -                     compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-a64-system-controller",
>> -                             "syscon";
>> +             sram_controller: sram-controller@...0000 {
>> +                     compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-a64-sram-controller";
>
> I don't think there's anything preventing us from keeping the
> -system-controller compatible. It's what was in the DT before, and
> it's how it's called in the datasheet.

I actually meant to ask you about this. The -system-controller compatible
matches the datasheet better. Maybe we should just switch to that one?

ChenYu

> Otherwise, the whole serie looks good to me:
> Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
>
> Maxime
>
> --
> Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com