| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:22:28 +0300
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Amarula patchwork <linux-amarula@...rulasolutions.com>,
michael@...rulasolutions.com,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
Dario Binacchi <dariobin@...ero.it>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: net: can: add STM32 bxcan DT
bindings
On 17/08/2022 17:35, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> Add documentation of device tree bindings for the STM32 basic extended
> CAN (bxcan) controller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dariobin@...ero.it>
> Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>
You do not need two SoBs. Keep only one, matching the From field.
> ---
>
> .../devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml | 139 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..f4cfd26e4785
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml
File name like compatible, so st,stm32-bxcan-core.yaml (or some other
name, see comment later)
> @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/can/st,bxcan.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: STMicroelectronics bxCAN controller Device Tree Bindings
s/Device Tree Bindings//
> +
> +description: STMicroelectronics BxCAN controller for CAN bus
> +
> +maintainers:
> + - Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>
> +
> +allOf:
> + - $ref: can-controller.yaml#
> +
> +properties:
> + compatible:
> + enum:
> + - st,stm32-bxcan-core
compatibles are supposed to be specific. If this is some type of
micro-SoC, then it should have its name/number. If it is dedicated
device, is the final name bxcan core? Google says the first is true, so
you miss specific device part.
> +
> + reg:
> + maxItems: 1
> +
> + resets:
> + maxItems: 1
> +
> + clocks:
> + description:
> + Input clock for registers access
> + maxItems: 1
> +
> + '#address-cells':
> + const: 1
> +
> + '#size-cells':
> + const: 0
> +
> +required:
> + - compatible
> + - reg
> + - resets
> + - clocks
> + - '#address-cells'
> + - '#size-cells'
> +
> +additionalProperties: false
> +
> +patternProperties:
This goes after "properties: in top level (before "required").
> + "^can@[0-9]+$":
> + type: object
> + description:
> + A CAN block node contains two subnodes, representing each one a CAN
> + instance available on the machine.
> +
> + properties:
> + compatible:
> + enum:
> + - st,stm32-bxcan
Why exactly do you need compatible for the child? Is it an entierly
separate device?
Comments about specific part are applied here as well.
> +
> + master:
Is this a standard property? I don't see it anywhere else. Non-standard
properties require vendor prefix.
> + description:
> + Master and slave mode of the bxCAN peripheral is only relevant
> + if the chip has two CAN peripherals. In that case they share
> + some of the required logic, and that means you cannot use the
> + slave CAN without the master CAN.
> + type: boolean
> +
> + reg:
> + description: |
> + Offset of CAN instance in CAN block. Valid values are:
> + - 0x0: CAN1
> + - 0x400: CAN2
> + maxItems: 1
> +
> + interrupts:
> + items:
> + - description: transmit interrupt
> + - description: FIFO 0 receive interrupt
> + - description: FIFO 1 receive interrupt
> + - description: status change error interrupt
> +
> + interrupt-names:
> + items:
> + - const: tx
> + - const: rx0
> + - const: rx1
> + - const: sce
> +
> + resets:
> + maxItems: 1
> +
> + clocks:
> + description:
> + Input clock for registers access
> + maxItems: 1
> +
> + additionalProperties: false
> +
> + required:
> + - compatible
> + - reg
> + - interrupts
> + - resets
> +
> +examples:
> + - |
> + #include <dt-bindings/clock/stm32fx-clock.h>
> + #include <dt-bindings/mfd/stm32f4-rcc.h>
> +
> + can: can@...06400 {
> + compatible = "st,stm32-bxcan-core";
> + reg = <0x40006400 0x800>;
> + resets = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_RESET(CAN1)>;
> + clocks = <&rcc 0 STM32F4_APB1_CLOCK(CAN1)>;
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + status = "disabled";
No status in examples.
> +
> + can1: can@0 {
> + compatible = "st,stm32-bxcan";
> + reg = <0x0>;
> + interrupts = <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>;
> + interrupt-names = "tx", "rx0", "rx1", "sce";
> + resets = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_RESET(CAN1)>;
> + master;
> + status = "disabled";
No status in examples.
> + };
> +
> + can2: can@400 {
> + compatible = "st,stm32-bxcan";
> + reg = <0x400>;
> + interrupts = <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>;
> + interrupt-names = "tx", "rx0", "rx1", "sce";
> + resets = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_RESET(CAN2)>;
> + clocks = <&rcc 0 STM32F4_APB1_CLOCK(CAN2)>;
> + status = "disabled";
No status in examples.
> + };
> + };
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists