| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220315190733.lal7c2xkaez6fz2v@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 19:07:34 +0000
From: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] dt-bindings: net: convert sff,sfp to dtschema
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 07:21:59PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/03/2022 13:33, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> > Convert the sff,sfp.txt bindings to the DT schema format.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
> > ---
(..)
> > +maintainers:
> > + - Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
> > +
> > +properties:
> > + compatible:
> > + enum:
> > + - sff,sfp # for SFP modules
> > + - sff,sff # for soldered down SFF modules
> > +
> > + i2c-bus:
>
> Thanks for the conversion.
>
> You need here a type because this does not look like standard property.
Ok.
>
> > + description:
> > + phandle of an I2C bus controller for the SFP two wire serial
> > +
> > + maximum-power-milliwatt:
> > + maxItems: 1
> > + description:
> > + Maximum module power consumption Specifies the maximum power consumption
> > + allowable by a module in the slot, in milli-Watts. Presently, modules can
> > + be up to 1W, 1.5W or 2W.
> > +
> > +patternProperties:
> > + "mod-def0-gpio(s)?":
>
> This should be just "mod-def0-gpios", no need for pattern. The same in
> all other places.
>
The GPIO subsystem accepts both suffixes: "gpio" and "gpios", see
gpio_suffixes[]. If I just use "mod-def0-gpios" multiple DT files will
fail the check because they are using the "gpio" suffix.
Why isn't this pattern acceptable?
> > +
> > + "rate-select1-gpio(s)?":
> > + maxItems: 1
> > + description:
> > + GPIO phandle and a specifier of the Tx Signaling Rate Select (AKA RS1)
> > + output gpio signal (SFP+ only), low - low Tx rate, high - high Tx rate. Must
> > + not be present for SFF modules
>
> This and other cases should have a "allOf: if: ...." with a
> "rate-select1-gpios: false", to disallow this property on SFF modules.
>
Ok, didn't know that's possible.
> > +
> > +required:
> > + - compatible
> > + - i2c-bus
> > +
> > +additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > + - | # Direct serdes to SFP connection
> > + #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> > +
> > + sfp_eth3: sfp-eth3 {
>
> Generic node name please, so maybe "transceiver"? or just "sfp"?
>
Ok, I can do just "sfp".
> > + compatible = "sff,sfp";
> > + i2c-bus = <&sfp_1g_i2c>;
> > + los-gpios = <&cpm_gpio2 22 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > + mod-def0-gpios = <&cpm_gpio2 21 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > + maximum-power-milliwatt = <1000>;
> > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > + pinctrl-0 = <&cpm_sfp_1g_pins &cps_sfp_1g_pins>;
> > + tx-disable-gpios = <&cps_gpio1 24 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > + tx-fault-gpios = <&cpm_gpio2 19 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + cps_emac3 {
>
> This is not related, so please remove.
It's related since it shows a generic usage pattern of the sfp node.
I wouldn't just remove it since it's just adds context to the example
not doing any harm.
>
> > + phy-names = "comphy";
> > + phys = <&cps_comphy5 0>;
> > + sfp = <&sfp_eth3>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + - | # Serdes to PHY to SFP connection
> > + #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
>
> Are you sure it works fine? Double define?
You mean that I added a second example? I don't understand the question.
And yes, I checked that the dtschema is ok and also that the DT files
are matching it correctly.
.
>
> > + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> > +
> > + sfp_eth0: sfp-eth0 {
>
> Same node name - generic.
Ok.
>
> > + compatible = "sff,sfp";
> > + i2c-bus = <&sfpp0_i2c>;
> > + los-gpios = <&cps_gpio1 28 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > + mod-def0-gpios = <&cps_gpio1 27 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > + pinctrl-0 = <&cps_sfpp0_pins>;
> > + tx-disable-gpios = <&cps_gpio1 29 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > + tx-fault-gpios = <&cps_gpio1 26 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> > + };
> > +
> > + mdio {
>
> Not related.
See above answer. Russell adding these examples in the original txt file
I suppose just wanted to show how things work together.
Why remove it?
>
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > + p0_phy: ethernet-phy@0 {
> > + compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c45";
> > + pinctrl-names = "default";
> > + pinctrl-0 = <&cpm_phy0_pins &cps_phy0_pins>;
> > + reg = <0>;
> > + interrupt = <&cpm_gpio2 18 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
> > + sfp = <&sfp_eth0>;
> > + };
> > + };
> > +
> > + cpm_eth0 {
>
> Also not related.
>
> > + phy = <&p0_phy>;
> > + phy-mode = "10gbase-kr";
> > + };
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > index 1397a6b039fb..6da4872b4efb 100644
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -17498,6 +17498,7 @@ SFF/SFP/SFP+ MODULE SUPPORT
> > M: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
> > L: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > S: Maintained
> > +F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/sff,sfp.yaml
>
> Mention this in the commit msg, please.
Ok, sure.
Ioana
Powered by blists - more mailing lists