[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1faa5511-a341-9c17-5e2a-974f8139d1d6@foss.st.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 16:07:49 +0200
From: Gatien CHEVALLIER <gatien.chevallier@...s.st.com>
To: Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
<Oleksii_Moisieiev@...m.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, <vkoul@...nel.org>, <jic23@...nel.org>,
<olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>, <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>,
<mchehab@...nel.org>, <fabrice.gasnier@...s.st.com>,
<andi.shyti@...nel.org>, <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<hugues.fruchet@...s.st.com>, <lee@...nel.org>, <will@...nel.org>,
<catalin.marinas@....com>, <arnd@...nel.org>,
<richardcochran@...il.com>
CC: <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
<linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] arm64: dts: st: add RIFSC as a domain controller
for STM32MP25x boards
Hi Alex,
On 7/6/23 11:30, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 7/6/23 11:25, Alexandre TORGUE wrote:
>> Hi Gatien
>>
>> On 7/5/23 19:27, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
>>> RIFSC is a firewall controller. Change its compatible so that is matches
>>> the documentation and reference RIFSC as a feature-domain-controller.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier@...s.st.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi | 5 ++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi
>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi
>>> index 5268a4321841..62101084cab8 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/st/stm32mp251.dtsi
>>> @@ -106,17 +106,20 @@ soc@0 {
>>> ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x80000000>;
>>> rifsc: rifsc-bus@...80000 {
>>> - compatible = "simple-bus";
>>> + compatible = "st,stm32mp25-rifsc";
>>
>> You could keep "simple-bus" compatible (in second position). In case
>> of the RIFSC is not probed, the platform will be able to boot. If you
>> agree you can use the same for ETZPC.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Alex
>
> Sure, good point.
>
> I'll change that in V2
>
> Best regards,
> Gatien
Actually, it would be a bad idea to keep "simple-bus" as a compatible.
Practical example:
1) Firewall controller forbids a device probe by marking the device's
node as populated (OF_POPULATED flag).
2) The simple-bus, which is simple, populates all the devices
from the device tree data, overriding what the firewall bus has done.
3)=>Forbidden device's driver will be probed.
I think it's best to keep one compatible. If someone wants these drivers
as external modules, then it'll be best to handle this differently.
I'll resubmit with a single compatible for V2, please do not
hesitate to comment on the V2 if you're not okay with this.
Best regards,
Gatien
>>
>>> reg = <0x42080000 0x1000>;
>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>> #size-cells = <1>;
>>> ranges;
>>> + feature-domain-controller;
>>> + #feature-domain-cells = <1>;
>>> usart2: serial@...e0000 {
>>> compatible = "st,stm32h7-uart";
>>> reg = <0x400e0000 0x400>;
>>> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 115 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> clocks = <&ck_flexgen_08>;
>>> + feature-domains = <&rifsc 32>;
>>> status = "disabled";
>>> };
>>> };
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists