Re: [PATCH 11/12] dt-bindings: arm: Document Broadcom SoCs 'secondary-boot-reg'

[Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3649 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 09:29:30PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 2/3/2020 12:34 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 01:18:26PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
> >> index c23c24ff7575..6f56a623c1cd 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
> >> @@ -272,6 +272,22 @@ properties:
> >>        While optional, it is the preferred way to get access to
> >>        the cpu-core power-domains.
> >>
> >> +  secondary-boot-reg:
> >> +    $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32'
> >> +    description: |
> >> +      Required for systems that have an "enable-method" property value of
> >> +      "brcm,bcm11351-cpu-method", "brcm,bcm23550" or "brcm,bcm-nsp-smp".
> >> +
> >> +      This includes the following SoCs: |
> >> +      BCM11130, BCM11140, BCM11351, BCM28145, BCM28155, BCM21664, BCM23550
> >> +      BCM58522, BCM58525, BCM58535, BCM58622, BCM58623, BCM58625, BCM88312
> >> +
> >> +      The secondary-boot-reg property is a u32 value that specifies the
> >> +      physical address of the register used to request the ROM holding pen
> >> +      code release a secondary CPU. The value written to the register is
> >> +      formed by encoding the target CPU id into the low bits of the
> >> +      physical start address it should jump to.
> >> +
> >
> > You can make the requirement explicit (and enforced by the schemas) using:
> >
> > if:
> >   properties:
> >     enable-method:
> >       contains:
> >         enum:
> > 	  - brcm,bcm11351-cpu-method
> > 	  - brcm,bcm23550
> > 	  - brcm,bcm-nsp-smp
> >
> > then:
> >   required:
> >     - secondary-boot-reg
>
> Thanks! That was exactly what I was looking for, it seems to be matching
> a bit too greedily though:
>
>   DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2836-rpi-2-b.dt.yaml
>   CHECK   arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2836-rpi-2-b.dt.yaml
> /home/ff944844/dev/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2836-rpi-2-b.dt.yaml:
> cpu@0: 'secondary-boot-reg' is a required property
> /home/ff944844/dev/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2836-rpi-2-b.dt.yaml:
> cpu@1: 'secondary-boot-reg' is a required property
> /home/ff944844/dev/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2836-rpi-2-b.dt.yaml:
> cpu@2: 'secondary-boot-reg' is a required property
> /home/ff944844/dev/linux/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2836-rpi-2-b.dt.yaml:
> cpu@3: 'secondary-boot-reg' is a required property
>   DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2837-rpi-3-a-plus.dt.yaml
>
> not sure why though as your example appears correct.

Yeah, sorry, that's on me :)

The nodes that are generating this error are the cpu@[0-3] ones, and
they don't have the enable-method property at all.

This is because if needs a schema, and will only try to validate the
schema under then if the one under if is valid.

The one under if contains a list of values for enable-method, but in
the case where enable-method is absent, the schema will be valid, and
thus the schema under then will be applied.

What we actually want to express is "if there's an enable-method
property, and that property contains those three values, then you need
to have a secondary-boot-reg property."

So you need:

if:
  # If the enable-method property contains one of those values
  properties:
    enable-method:
      contains:
        enum:
          - brcm,bcm11351-cpu-method
          - brcm,bcm23550
          - brcm,bcm-nsp-smp

  # and if enable method is present
  required:
    - enable-method

# Then we need secondary-boot-reg too
then:
  required:
    - secondary-boot-reg

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]