Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/31] Documentation: Add binding for kalray,kv3-1-core-intc

On 26/01/2023 17:10, Jules Maselbas wrote:

>>> +  reg:
>>> +    maxItems: 0
>>
>> ??? No way... What's this?
> This (per CPU) interrupt controller is not memory mapped at all, it is
> controlled and configured through system registers.
> 
> I do not have found existing .yaml bindings for such devices, only the
> file snps,archs-intc.txt has something similar.
> 
> I do not know what is the best way to represent such devices in the
> device-tree.  Any suggestions are welcome.

You cannot have an array property with 0 items. How would it look like
in DTS? There are many, many bindings which are expressing it. Just drop
the reg.

> 
>>
>>> +  "kalray,intc-nr-irqs":
>>
>> Drop quotes.
>>
>>> +    description: Number of irqs handled by the controller.
>>
>> Why this is variable per board? Why do you need it ?
> This property is not even used in our device-tree, this will be removed
> from the documentation and from the driver as well.
> 
>>> +
>>> +required:
>>> +  - compatible
>>> +  - "#interrupt-cells"
>>> +  - interrupt-controller
>>
>> missing additionalProperties: false
>>
>> This binding looks poor, like you started from something odd. Please
>> don't. Take the newest reviewed binding or better example-schema and use
>> it to build yours. This would solve several trivial mistakes and style
>> issues.
> I am starting over from the example-schema.
> 
>>> +
>>> +examples:
>>> +  - |
>>> +    intc: interrupt-controller {
>>
>> What's the IO address space?
> As said above, this is not a memory mapped device, but is accessed
> through system registers.

Sure, but then you cannot define a reg which was confusing...

Best regards,
Krzysztof

--
Linux-audit mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit