[RFC PATCH 6/7] ARM: dts: stm32: add ETZPC as a system bus for STM32MP15x boards

Krzysztof Kozlowski krzk at kernel.org
Thu Dec 22 07:21:35 PST 2022


On 22/12/2022 15:42, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> On 12/22/22 11:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/12/2022 18:30, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
>>> The STM32 System Bus is an internal bus on which devices are connected.
>>> ETZPC is a peripheral overseeing the firewall bus that configures
>>> and control access to the peripherals connected on it.
>>>
>>> For more information on which peripheral is securable, please read
>>> the STM32MP15 reference manual.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier at foss.st.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi | 2737 +++++++++++++++--------------
>>>   1 file changed, 1406 insertions(+), 1331 deletions(-)
>>>   
>>> -		lptimer1: timer at 40009000 {
>>> +		etzpc: etzpc at 5c007000 {
>>
>> Node names should be generic.
>> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation
> 
> Will change to etzpc: bus at 5c007000 in V3
> 
>>
>>> +			compatible = "st,stm32mp15-sys-bus";
>>> +			reg = <0x5c007000 0x400>;
>>>   			#address-cells = <1>;
>>> -			#size-cells = <0>;
>>> -			compatible = "st,stm32-lptimer";
>>> -			reg = <0x40009000 0x400>;
>>> -			interrupts-extended = <&exti 47 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> -			clocks = <&rcc LPTIM1_K>;
>>> -			clock-names = "mux";
>>> -			wakeup-source;
>>> -			status = "disabled";
>>
>> Why entire bus is disabled? What resources do you miss?
> 
> Here, I did not want to modify the status of the nodes in the device 

By making it disabled you actually modify the status of any enabled
node. By making it enabled you do not cause any change.

> tree. Nodes that are default enabled in the SoC device tree stay enabled 
> and vice-versa.

No, because parent is disabled.

> IMO think this patch should not include these kind of 
> changes in its scope. I describe the bus and the peripherals connected 
> to it, nothing more :)

I am not proposing to change existing nodes. I am asking why new node is
being disabled (because it is a new node, isn't it?).

Best regards,
Krzysztof




More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list