Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220721221212.18491-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> <20220721221212.18491-2-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220721221212.18491-2-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 11:31:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVy0w8Y-+MegHnjdFkQ7vB1Y=jPY-9atTFT_WTVYOiGLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: renesas: renesas,rzg2l-sysc:
 Document RZ/Five SoC
To:     Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
Cc:     Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Prabhakar,

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:15 AM Lad Prabhakar
<prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> wrote:
> Document RZ/Five (R9A07G043) SYSC bindings. SYSC block found on the
> RZ/Five SoC is almost identical to one found on the RZ/G2L (and alike)
> SoC's. To differentiate RZ/G2UL from RZ/Five, "-rzfive" is included in
> the compatible string for the RZ/Five SoC as there are no interrupts
> from the SYSC block to the core.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>

Thanks for your patch!

> ---
>  .../soc/renesas/renesas,rzg2l-sysc.yaml       | 56 +++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/renesas,rzg2l-sysc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/renesas,rzg2l-sysc.yaml
> index ce2875c89329..bdaf05f8b29b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/renesas,rzg2l-sysc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/renesas/renesas,rzg2l-sysc.yaml
> @@ -20,35 +20,57 @@ description:
>  properties:
>    compatible:
>      enum:
> -      - renesas,r9a07g043-sysc # RZ/G2UL
> -      - renesas,r9a07g044-sysc # RZ/G2{L,LC}
> -      - renesas,r9a07g054-sysc # RZ/V2L
> +      - renesas,r9a07g043-rzfive-sysc # RZ/Five

renesas,r9a07g043f-sysc?

But I'm wondering if we really need a different compatible value?
It looks like both blocks differ only in external wiring, so if
anything needs to be handled differently (the removed/added registers
are related to CPU topology), that can be inferred from the system
topology (or even #ifdef CONFIG_{ARM64,RISCV} ;-)

> +      - renesas,r9a07g043-sysc        # RZ/G2UL
> +      - renesas,r9a07g044-sysc        # RZ/G2{L,LC}
> +      - renesas,r9a07g054-sysc        # RZ/V2L
>
>    reg:
>      maxItems: 1
>
> -  interrupts:
> -    items:
> -      - description: CA55/CM33 Sleep/Software Standby Mode request interrupt
> -      - description: CA55 Software Standby Mode release request interrupt
> -      - description: CM33 Software Standby Mode release request interrupt
> -      - description: CA55 ACE Asynchronous Bridge Master/Slave interface deny request interrupt
> +  interrupts: true
>
> -  interrupt-names:
> -    items:
> -      - const: lpm_int
> -      - const: ca55stbydone_int
> -      - const: cm33stbyr_int
> -      - const: ca55_deny
> +  interrupt-names: true
>
>  required:
>    - compatible
>    - reg
> -  - interrupts
> -  - interrupt-names
>
>  additionalProperties: false
>
> +allOf:
> +  - if:
> +      not:
> +        properties:
> +          compatible:
> +            contains:
> +              enum:
> +                - renesas,r9a07g043-rzfive-sysc
> +    then:
> +      properties:
> +        interrupts:
> +          items:
> +            - description: CA55/CM33 Sleep/Software Standby Mode request interrupt
> +            - description: CA55 Software Standby Mode release request interrupt
> +            - description: CM33 Software Standby Mode release request interrupt
> +            - description: CA55 ACE Asynchronous Bridge Master/Slave interface deny request interrupt
> +
> +        interrupt-names:
> +          items:
> +            - const: lpm_int
> +            - const: ca55stbydone_int
> +            - const: cm33stbyr_int
> +            - const: ca55_deny
> +
> +      required:
> +        - interrupts
> +        - interrupt-names
> +
> +    else:
> +      properties:
> +        interrupts: false
> +        interrupt-names: false

Do all interrupts{,-names} have to be moved?
Wouldn't it be sufficient to just have

    if [...]
    then:
        required:
          - interrupts
          - interrupt-names
    else:
        properties:
            interrupts: false
            interrupt-names: false

?

But again, without a new compatible value, you could just make
interrupts{,-names} not required?

> +
>  examples:
>    - |
>      #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds