netdev - Re: [PATCH 16/28] dt-bindings: dpll: Add support for Microchip Azurite chip family

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]

Message-ID: <280e8a8e-b68f-4536-b9a4-4e924dde0783@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 09:19:32 +0200
From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>,
 Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
 Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
 Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Prathosh Satish <Prathosh.Satish@...rochip.com>,
 Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton
 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/28] dt-bindings: dpll: Add support for Microchip
 Azurite chip family



On 07. 04. 25 8:04 odp., Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/04/2025 19:31, Ivan Vecera wrote:
>> This adds DT bindings schema for Microchip Azurite DPLL chip family.
> 
> Please do not use "This commit/patch/change", but imperative mood. See
> longer explanation here:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17.1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L95
> 
>> These bindings are used by zl3073x driver and specifies this device
>> that can be connected either to I2C or SPI bus.
> 
> Bindings are for hardware, not driver. Explain the hardware.

OK

>>
>> The schema inherits existing dpll-device and dpll-pin schemas.
>>
> 
> Do not explain what schema does - we see  it. Explain the hardware which
> we do not see here, because we (or to be precise: I) know nothing about.

OK

>> Reviewed-by: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   .../bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x.yaml      | 74 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   MAINTAINERS                                   |  1 +
>>   2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x.yaml
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x.yaml
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000..38a6cc00bc026
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dpll/microchip,zl3073x.yaml
>> @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> +%YAML 1.2
>> +---
>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/dpll/microchip,zl3073x.yaml#
>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>> +
>> +title: Microchip Azurite DPLL device
>> +
>> +maintainers:
>> +  - Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
>> +
>> +properties:
>> +  compatible:
>> +    enum:
>> +      - microchip,zl3073x-i2c
>> +      - microchip,zl3073x-spi
> 
> 1. No, you do not get two compatibles. Only one.

Will split to two files, one for i2c and one for spi.

> 2. What is 'x'? Wildcard? If so, drop and use specific compatibles.

Microchip refers to the ZL3073x as a family of compatible DPLL chips 
with the same features. There is no need to introduce separate 
compatible string for each of them.

>> +
>> +  reg:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +required:
>> +  - compatible
>> +  - reg
>> +
>> +allOf:
>> +  - $ref: /schemas/dpll/dpll-device.yaml
>> +
>> +unevaluatedProperties: false
>> +
>> +examples:
>> +  - |
>> +    i2c {
>> +      #address-cells = <1>;
>> +      #size-cells = <0>;
>> +
>> +      dpll@70 {
>> +        compatible = "microchip,zl3073x-i2c";
> 
>> +        #address-cells = <0>;
>> +        #size-cells = <0>;
> 
> Again, why do you need them if you are not using these two?

The dpll-device.yaml defines them as required. Shouldn't they be 
specified explicitly?

>> +        reg = <0x70>;
>> +        status = "okay";
> 
> Drop

OK

> Also, follow DTS coding style and order properties properly.
> 
>> +
>> +        num-dplls = <2>;
>> +        dpll-types = "pps", "eec";
>> +

Ack
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>