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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/rng/microchip,mpfs-rng.yaml | 29 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/microchip,mpfs-rng.yaml >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/microchip,mpfs-rng.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/microchip,mpfs-rng.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..32cbc37c9292 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rng/microchip,mpfs-rng.yaml >>> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>> +%YAML 1.2 >>> +--- >>> +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/rng/microchip,mpfs-rng.yaml#"; >>> +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"; >>> + >>> +title: Microchip MPFS random number generator >>> + >>> +maintainers: >>> + - Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> + >>> +description: | >>> + The hardware random number generator on the Polarfire SoC is >>> + accessed via the mailbox interface provided by the system controller >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + const: microchip,mpfs-rng >>> + >>> +required: >>> + - compatible >>> + >>> +additionalProperties: false >>> + >>> +examples: >>> + - | >>> + hwrandom: hwrandom { >> >> 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? > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
