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 <[email protected]>
---
.../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 <[email protected]>
+
+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
