[PATCH v2 06/17] dt-bindings: rng: add bindings for microchip mpfs rng

[conor dooley]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Friday, December 17th, 2021 at 15:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at canonical.com> wrote:

> On 17/12/2021 16:22, Conor.Dooley at microchip.com wrote:
>
> > On 17/12/2021 15:07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >
> > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > >
> > > On 17/12/2021 15:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 17/12/2021 10:33, conor.dooley at microchip.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Conor Dooley conor.dooley at microchip.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Add device tree bindings for the hardware rng device accessed via
> > > > >
> > > > > the system services on the Microchip PolarFire SoC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley at microchip.com
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Three topics:
> > > >
> > > > 1.  Node name (as most of others are using): rng
> > > > 2.  skip the label, not helping in example.
> > > > 3.  This looks very simple, so I wonder if the bindings are complete. No
> > > >
> > > >     IO space/address... How is it going to be instantiated?
> > > OK, now I saw the usage in DTS. I have doubts this makes sense as
> > > separate bindings. It looks like integrated part of syscontroller, so
> > > maybe make it part of that binding? Or at least add ref to syscontroller
> > > bindings that such child is expected.
> > Acking the rest of this, re: adding the ref: is what is being done in
> > patch 03/17 insufficient?
> Ops, I missed the 03/17. Yeah, it looks it is sufficient and in such
> case I think you do not need this patch. The compatible is documented in
> 03/17. The same for sysserv.
Grand, that makes things easier.
Conor.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Krzysztof
>
> linux-riscv mailing list
>
> linux-riscv at lists.infradead.org
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv