On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:20:59PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote: > Document brcm,bmips-cbr-reg and brcm,bmips-broken-cbr-reg property. > > Some SoC suffer from a BUG where read_c0_brcm_cbr() might return 0 > if called from TP1. The CBR address is always the same on the SoC > hence it can be provided in DT to handle broken case where bootloader > doesn't init it or SMP where read_c0_brcm_cbr() returns 0 from TP1. > > Usage of this property is to give an address also in these broken > configuration/bootloader. > > If the SoC/Bootloader ALWAYS provide a broken CBR address the property > "brcm,bmips-broken-cbr-reg" can be used to ignore any value already set > in the registers for CBR address. Why can't these be implied from an SoC specific compatible? It's not a great design where you have to update the DT which should be provided from the bootloader in order to work-around bootloader issues... > > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/mips/brcm/soc.yaml | 32 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/brcm/soc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/brcm/soc.yaml > index 975945ca2888..29af8f0db785 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/brcm/soc.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/brcm/soc.yaml > @@ -55,6 +55,21 @@ properties: > under the "cpus" node. > $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > > + brcm,bmips-broken-cbr-reg: > + description: Declare that the Bootloader init a broken > + CBR address in the registers and the one provided from > + DT should always be used. Why wouldn't brcm,bmips-cbr-reg being present indicate to use it? > + type: boolean > + > + brcm,bmips-cbr-reg: > + description: Reference address of the CBR. > + Some SoC suffer from a BUG where read_c0_brcm_cbr() might > + return 0 if called from TP1. The CBR address is always the > + same on the SoC hence it can be provided in DT to handle > + broken case where bootloader doesn't initialise it or SMP > + where read_c0_brcm_cbr() returns 0 from TP1. > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 CBR is never defined anywhere in this patch. > + > patternProperties: > "^cpu@[0-9]$": > type: object > @@ -64,6 +79,23 @@ properties: > required: > - mips-hpt-frequency > > +dependencies: > + brcm,bmips-broken-cbr-reg: [ brcm,bmips-cbr-reg ] The inline syntax (i.e. []) means you need quotes for commas. This has no effect because you are applying it to the root node. Needs to be a the same level as the properties. > + > +if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + contains: > + anyOf: > + - const: brcm,bcm6358 > + - const: brcm,bcm6368 Replace anyOf+const with enum. > + > +then: > + properties: > + cpus: > + required: > + - brcm,bmips-cbr-reg > + > additionalProperties: true > > examples: > -- > 2.43.0 >
