Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: hwlock: Adding brcmstb-hwspinlock support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 09/10/2025 01:39, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/8/2025 8:56 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 02:16:39PM -0400, Kamal Dasu wrote:
>>> Adding brcmstb-hwspinlock bindings.
>>
>> That's obvious from the diff. Tell us something about the h/w and
>> convince me we don't need per SoC compatible which is standard practice.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kamal Dasu <kamal.dasu@broadcom.com>
>>> ---
>>>   .../hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml       | 36 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..f45399b4fe0b
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>> +---
>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/hwlock/brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock.yaml#
>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>> +
>>> +title: Broadcom settop Hardware Spinlock
>>> +
>>> +maintainers:
>>> +  - Kamal Dasu <kamal.dasu@broadcom.com>
>>> +
>>> +properties:
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    const: brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock
>>
>> hwspinlock is the name of the h/w block? Use the name of the h/w, not
>> linux subsystem names.
>>
>>> +
>>> +  "#hwlock-cells":
>>> +    const: 1
>>> +
>>> +  reg:
>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> +required:
>>> +  - compatible
>>> +  - reg
>>> +  - "#hwlock-cells"
>>> +
>>> +additionalProperties: false
>>> +
>>> +examples:
>>> +  - |
>>> +    hwlock@8404038 {
>>> +        compatible = "brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock";
>>> +        reg = <0x8404038 0x40>;
>>
>> h/w blocks rarely start at an offset like that. Is this part of some
>> other h/w block? If so, then just add '#hwlock-cells' to *that* node.
> 
> We've answered that in the previous review:
> 
> The block is part of a "sundry" IP which has lots of controls that did 
> not belong anywhere else, for better or for worse (pin/mux controls, SoC 
> identification, drive strength, reset controls, and other misc bits).


And every time above explanation will not reach description or commit
msg we will ask the same.



Best regards,
Krzysztof