On 04/01/2023 14:43, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote: > Hello Krzysztof, > > On 12/22/22 14:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 22/12/2022 14:51, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On 12/22/22 11:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 21/12/2022 18:30, Gatien Chevallier wrote: >>>>> Adds the list of peripherals IDs under firewall bus on STM32MP15. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> include/dt-bindings/bus/stm32mp15_sys_bus.h | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/bus/stm32mp15_sys_bus.h >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/bus/stm32mp15_sys_bus.h b/include/dt-bindings/bus/stm32mp15_sys_bus.h >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 000000000000..97eacc7b5f16 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/bus/stm32mp15_sys_bus.h >>>> >>>> That's wrong in multiple ways: >>>> 1. No underscores >>>> 2. Missing vendor prefix >>>> 3. Name not matching compatible. >>> >>> Sure, will comply in V3. >>> >>>> >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ >>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) */ >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * Copyright (C) STMicroelectronics 2022 - All Rights Reserved >>>>> + */ >>>>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_BUS_STM32MP15_SYS_BUS_H >>>>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_BUS_STM32MP15_SYS_BUS_H >>>>> + >>>>> +/* ETZPC IDs */ >>>>> +#define STM32MP1_ETZPC_STGENC_ID 0 >>>>> +#define STM32MP1_ETZPC_BKPSRAM_ID 1 >>>>> +#define STM32MP1_ETZPC_IWDG1_ID 2 >>>>> +#define STM32MP1_ETZPC_USART1_ID 3 >>>>> +#define STM32MP1_ETZPC_SPI6_ID 4 >>>>> +#define STM32MP1_ETZPC_I2C4_ID 5 >>>>> +/* ID 6 reserved */ >>>> >>>> Reserved why? These are IDs so they start from 0 and go by 0. Don't >>>> hard-code some register offsets. >>> >>> Here, I do define IDs. Some appear as reserved based on what I've seen >>> in the SoC datasheet that states these as "indexes" >>> >>> Please see the table 94 in chapter 15.6 (ETZPC) of the STM32MP157 >>> Reference manual: >>> [1] https://www.st.com/resource/en/reference_manual/DM00327659-.pdf >> >> Then why do you define them in bindings? Use raw numbers. Do you see >> anywhere in arm/arm64 bindings for GIC_SPI interrupt numbers? >> > > What would you think of simply removing the comments that state that IDs > are reserved, mimicking the way it is for qcom bindings? Fundamentally, > they are indeed only IDs and could be raw numbers. If these are IDs then there are no reserved numbers and they are continuous from 0 to X. Without gaps. > IMO, this makes reading the device tree harder. Because you'd have to > look what the raw number corresponds to. Sure, but that's not the reason to put numbers to the bindings... You mix defines with bindings. > To take an example, it has already been done for SCMI clocks and I find > it eases comprehension. You need to be a bit more specific... Anyway, IDs should be placed in bindings. Some mapping of internal/hardware ports, registers, offsets, values - usually not. I don't know where exactly your case fits, but when some IDs are reserved it is a clear sign that these are not IDs (again - IDs start from 0 and go incrementally by one, without gaps). Best regards, Krzysztof
