[PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: hwlock: Adding brcmstb-hwspinlock support
Florian Fainelli
florian.fainelli at broadcom.com
Wed Oct 8 09:39:59 PDT 2025
On 10/8/2025 8:56 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 02:16:39PM -0400, Kamal Dasu wrote:
>> Adding brcmstb-hwspinlock bindings.
>
> That's obvious from the diff. Tell us something about the h/w and
> convince me we don't need per SoC compatible which is standard practice.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kamal Dasu <kamal.dasu at broadcom.com>
>> ---
>> .../hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml | 36 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..f45399b4fe0b
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml
>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> +%YAML 1.2
>> +---
>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml#
>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>> +
>> +title: Broadcom settop Hardware Spinlock
>> +
>> +maintainers:
>> + - Kamal Dasu <kamal.dasu at broadcom.com>
>> +
>> +properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + const: brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock
>
> hwspinlock is the name of the h/w block? Use the name of the h/w, not
> linux subsystem names.
>
>> +
>> + "#hwlock-cells":
>> + const: 1
>> +
>> + reg:
>> + maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +required:
>> + - compatible
>> + - reg
>> + - "#hwlock-cells"
>> +
>> +additionalProperties: false
>> +
>> +examples:
>> + - |
>> + hwlock at 8404038 {
>> + compatible = "brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock";
>> + reg = <0x8404038 0x40>;
>
> h/w blocks rarely start at an offset like that. Is this part of some
> other h/w block? If so, then just add '#hwlock-cells' to *that* node.
We've answered that in the previous review:
The block is part of a "sundry" IP which has lots of controls that did
not belong anywhere else, for better or for worse (pin/mux controls, SoC
identification, drive strength, reset controls, and other misc bits).
--
Florian
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list