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

[Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>]

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).
-- 
Florian