Hi Rob, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 02:07:18PM +0000, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote: >> >> Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > feature-domains is an optional property that allows a peripheral to >> > refer to one or more feature domain controller(s). >> > >> > Description of this property is added to all peripheral binding files of >> > the peripheral under the STM32 firewall controllers. It allows an accurate >> > representation of the hardware, where various peripherals are connected >> > to this firewall bus. The firewall can then check the peripheral accesses >> > before allowing it to probe. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > >> > Disclaimer: Some error with dtbs_check will be observed as I've >> > considered the property to be generic, as Rob asked >> > >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/st,stm32-hash.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/st,stm32-dma.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/st,stm32-dmamux.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/st,stm32-i2c.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/st,stm32-adc.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > .../devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/st,stm32-dfsdm-adc.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/st,stm32-dac.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > .../devicetree/bindings/media/cec/st,stm32-cec.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > .../bindings/memory-controllers/st,stm32-fmc2-ebi.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stm32-lptimer.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/st,stm32-timers.yaml | 5 +++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arm,pl18x.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/stm32-dwmac.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-stm32-usbphyc.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/st,stm32-vrefbuf.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/st,stm32-rng.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/st,stm32-uart.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/st,stm32-i2s.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/st,stm32-sai.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > .../devicetree/bindings/sound/st,stm32-spdifrx.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/st,stm32-qspi.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/st,stm32-spi.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/dwc2.yaml | 4 ++++ >> > 24 files changed, 97 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/st,stm32-hash.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/st,stm32-hash.yaml >> > index b767ec72a999..daf8dcaef627 100644 >> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/st,stm32-hash.yaml >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/st,stm32-hash.yaml >> > @@ -50,6 +50,10 @@ properties: >> > power-domains: >> > maxItems: 1 >> > >> > + feature-domains: >> > + minItems: 1 >> > + maxItems: 3 >> > + >> >> I beliewe feature-domains is generic binding. This means that maxItems >> can be implementation dependend. I would rather drop maxItems so the >> following format will be possible: >> >> feature-domains = <&etzpc 1>, <&etzpc 2>, <&some_other_domain 1 2 3 4> >> feature-domain-names = "firewall 1", "firewall 2", "other_domain" > > The above already allows this (not -names, but the number of entries). >> >> Also I beliewe driver will handle feature-domain-names property so it >> will parse feature-domains only related to the firewall. > > Now I'm curious. What's an example that's not a firewall? > > (Note I'm still not happy with the naming of 'feature' as anything is a > feature, but that's the least of the issues really.) > The alternative usages of feature-domains was originally proposed by me here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c869d2751125181a55bc8a88c96e3a892b42f37a.1668070216.git.oleksii_moisieiev@xxxxxxxx/ Also I remember Peng Fan also was interested in those bindings. I think the use-case when one node is protected by firewall and also is controlled by scmi feature-domain-controller (As was proposed in my patch series) may take place. As for the naming maybe you have some thoughts about better name? -- Thanks, Oleksii
