On 7/13/20 7:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote:

On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 03:25:19PM +0200, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:

quoted

Add schemas for firewall consumer and provider.

Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gaignard <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <redacted>
---
  .../bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml      | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++
  .../bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-provider.yaml      | 18 +++++++++++
  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml
  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-provider.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..d3d76f99b38d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/bus/stm32/firewall-consumer.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Common Bus Firewall consumer binding

I'm all for common bindings, but I want to see more than 1 user before
accepting this. There's been some other postings for similar h/w
(AFAICT) recently.

quoted

+
+description: |
+  Firewall properties provide the possible firewall bus controller
+  configurations for a device.
+  Bus firewall controllers are typically used to control if a hardware
+  block can perform read or write operations on bus.
+  The contents of the firewall bus configuration properties are defined by
+  the binding for the individual firewall controller device.
+
+  The first configuration 'firewall-0' or the one named 'default' is
+  applied before probing the device itself.

This is a Linux implementation detail and debatable whether the core
should do this or drivers.

I could prefix the property with 'st,stm32' so it will dedicated to 
STM32 SoCs.
Will it sound better for you ?

 From Greg comments in the previous versions of this patch I understand that
it isn't something to be done in the core. The best I can do here is to 
keep it as
helpers for STM32 SoCs.

quoted

+
+maintainers:
+  - Benjamin Gaignard [off-list ref]
+
+# always select the core schema
+select: true
+
+properties:
+  firewall-0: true
+
+  firewall-names: true
+
+patternProperties:
+  "firewall-[0-9]":
+    $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array"

So I guess multiple properties is to encode all the modes into DT like
pinctrl does. Is that really necessary? I don't think so as I wouldn't
expect modes to be defined by the consumer, but by the provider in this
case. To use pinctrl as a example, we could have pad setting per MMC
speed. That has to be in the consumer side as the pinctrl knows nothing
about MMC.

I expect to be able to set phandle on different firewall controllers.
I don't know if it is possible with the same structure than for pins 
controllers.

  
Rob