diff mbox series

[v4,1/4] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Document smmu-500 binding for SM6125

Message ID 20221216215819.1164973-2-marijn.suijten@somainline.org
State New
Headers
Series arm64: dts: qcom: sm6125: Enable APPS SMMU |

Commit Message

Marijn Suijten Dec. 16, 2022, 9:58 p.m. UTC 
  From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>

Document smmu-500 compatibility with the SM6125 SoC.

Signed-off-by: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>
[Marijn: Move compatible to the new, generic, qcom,smmu-500 list]
Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

Krzysztof Kozlowski Dec. 19, 2022, 9:07 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 16/12/2022 22:58, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>
> 
> Document smmu-500 compatibility with the SM6125 SoC.
> 

Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Krzysztof Kozlowski Dec. 19, 2022, 9:09 a.m. UTC | #2 
On 19/12/2022 10:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/12/2022 22:58, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>> From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>
>>
>> Document smmu-500 compatibility with the SM6125 SoC.
>>
> 
> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>

Wait, not entirely... no constraints for clocks and regs?

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Marijn Suijten Dec. 19, 2022, 7:28 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 2022-12-19 10:09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/12/2022 10:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 16/12/2022 22:58, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >> From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>
> >>
> >> Document smmu-500 compatibility with the SM6125 SoC.
> >>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> 
> Wait, not entirely... no constraints for clocks and regs?

Quite odd that there is no warning for my DT patch as it clearly
requires at least one clock...

Irrespective of that downstream doesn't define any (nor power domains).
How should we proceed?

- Marijn
Krzysztof Kozlowski Dec. 20, 2022, 9:52 a.m. UTC | #4 
On 19/12/2022 20:28, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-12-19 10:09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 19/12/2022 10:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2022 22:58, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>> From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>
>>>>
>>>> Document smmu-500 compatibility with the SM6125 SoC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>
>> Wait, not entirely... no constraints for clocks and regs?
> 
> Quite odd that there is no warning for my DT patch as it clearly
> requires at least one clock...
> 
> Irrespective of that downstream doesn't define any (nor power domains).
> How should we proceed?

Binding now has constraints for clocks so at least that should be added
to your variant.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Marijn Suijten Dec. 22, 2022, 8:23 a.m. UTC | #5 
On 2022-12-20 10:52:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/12/2022 20:28, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2022-12-19 10:09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 19/12/2022 10:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 16/12/2022 22:58, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >>>> From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> Document smmu-500 compatibility with the SM6125 SoC.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> Wait, not entirely... no constraints for clocks and regs?
> > 
> > Quite odd that there is no warning for my DT patch as it clearly
> > requires at least one clock...

Again, any idea why there's no warning for this DT mismatching minItems:
1 for clocks, clock-names and power-domains?

> > Irrespective of that downstream doesn't define any (nor power domains).
> > How should we proceed?
> 
> Binding now has constraints for clocks so at least that should be added
> to your variant.

And that should be:

    clock-names: false
    clocks: false
    power-domains: false

Because this board does declare have any, at least not when going off of
downstream DT?

- Marijn
Krzysztof Kozlowski Dec. 22, 2022, 9:29 a.m. UTC | #6 
On 22/12/2022 09:23, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-12-20 10:52:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 19/12/2022 20:28, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-19 10:09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 19/12/2022 10:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 16/12/2022 22:58, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>>>> From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Document smmu-500 compatibility with the SM6125 SoC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> Wait, not entirely... no constraints for clocks and regs?
>>>
>>> Quite odd that there is no warning for my DT patch as it clearly
>>> requires at least one clock...
> 
> Again, any idea why there's no warning for this DT mismatching minItems:
> 1 for clocks, clock-names and power-domains?

I don't know what do you have in DT and what is mismatched. Why there
should be a warning?

> 
>>> Irrespective of that downstream doesn't define any (nor power domains).
>>> How should we proceed?
>>
>> Binding now has constraints for clocks so at least that should be added
>> to your variant.
> 
> And that should be:
> 
>     clock-names: false
>     clocks: false
>     power-domains: false
> 
> Because this board does declare have any, at least not when going off of
> downstream DT?

I'll add it for existing platforms, so you can rebase on top.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Marijn Suijten Dec. 22, 2022, 10:10 a.m. UTC | #7 
On 2022-12-22 10:29:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/12/2022 09:23, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2022-12-20 10:52:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 19/12/2022 20:28, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >>> On 2022-12-19 10:09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 19/12/2022 10:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 16/12/2022 22:58, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Document smmu-500 compatibility with the SM6125 SoC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> Wait, not entirely... no constraints for clocks and regs?
> >>>
> >>> Quite odd that there is no warning for my DT patch as it clearly
> >>> requires at least one clock...
> > 
> > Again, any idea why there's no warning for this DT mismatching minItems:
> > 1 for clocks, clock-names and power-domains?
> 
> I don't know what do you have in DT and what is mismatched. Why there
> should be a warning?

There is:

  clock-names:
    minItems: 1
    maxItems: 7

  clocks:
    minItems: 1
    maxItems: 7

But I did not provide _any_ (see patch 2 of this series).  Shouldn't
that trigger a warning?

> >>> Irrespective of that downstream doesn't define any (nor power domains).
> >>> How should we proceed?
> >>
> >> Binding now has constraints for clocks so at least that should be added
> >> to your variant.
> > 
> > And that should be:
> > 
> >     clock-names: false
> >     clocks: false
> >     power-domains: false
> > 
> > Because this board does declare have any, at least not when going off of
> > downstream DT?
> 
> I'll add it for existing platforms, so you can rebase on top.

Thanks, will do!

- Marijn
Krzysztof Kozlowski Dec. 22, 2022, 10:36 a.m. UTC | #8 
On 22/12/2022 11:10, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2022-12-22 10:29:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 22/12/2022 09:23, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-20 10:52:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 19/12/2022 20:28, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-12-19 10:09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/12/2022 10:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/12/2022 22:58, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Document smmu-500 compatibility with the SM6125 SoC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wait, not entirely... no constraints for clocks and regs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite odd that there is no warning for my DT patch as it clearly
>>>>> requires at least one clock...
>>>
>>> Again, any idea why there's no warning for this DT mismatching minItems:
>>> 1 for clocks, clock-names and power-domains?
>>
>> I don't know what do you have in DT and what is mismatched. Why there
>> should be a warning?
> 
> There is:
> 
>   clock-names:
>     minItems: 1
>     maxItems: 7
> 
>   clocks:
>     minItems: 1
>     maxItems: 7
> 
> But I did not provide _any_ (see patch 2 of this series).  Shouldn't
> that trigger a warning?

No. Are these required properties?

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Marijn Suijten Dec. 22, 2022, 1:17 p.m. UTC | #9 
On 2022-12-22 11:36:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> [..]
> > There is:
> > 
> >   clock-names:
> >     minItems: 1
> >     maxItems: 7
> > 
> >   clocks:
> >     minItems: 1
> >     maxItems: 7
> > 
> > But I did not provide _any_ (see patch 2 of this series).  Shouldn't
> > that trigger a warning?
> 
> No. Are these required properties?

Ah right, this has no effect if the property is not required.  Only if
the property is set should it adhere to minItems; that is, `clocks;` or
`clock-names;` as boolean property isn't allowed, it has to have `clocks
= <between 1 and 7 items>`.

- Marijn
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
index b28c5c2b0ff2..95b03fd86e18 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@  properties:
               - qcom,sdm670-smmu-500
               - qcom,sdm845-smmu-500
               - qcom,sm6115-smmu-500
+              - qcom,sm6125-smmu-500
               - qcom,sm6350-smmu-500
               - qcom,sm6375-smmu-500
               - qcom,sm8150-smmu-500