The broadcom settop SoCs have hardware semaphores as part of "sundry"
IP block which has other controls that do not belong anywhere else.
e.g. pin/mux controls, SoC identification, drive strength, reset controls,
and other misc bits are part of this block.

Adding brcmstb-hwspinlock bindings which allows the hwspinlock driver to
iomap only the 16 hardware semaphore registers that are part of all settop
SoCs. Hence the bindings shall use the common "brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock"
compatibility string.

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
+
+  "#hwlock-cells":
+    const: 1
+
+  reg:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+required:
+  - compatible
+  - reg
+  - "#hwlock-cells"
+
+additionalProperties: false
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    hwlock@8404038 {
+        compatible = "brcm,brcmstb-hwspinlock";
+        reg = <0x8404038 0x40>;
+        #hwlock-cells = <1>;
+    };
+
-- 
2.34.1

On 09/10/2025 23:20, Kamal Dasu wrote:
> The broadcom settop SoCs have hardware semaphores as part of "sundry"
> IP block which has other controls that do not belong anywhere else.
> e.g. pin/mux controls, SoC identification, drive strength, reset controls,
> and other misc bits are part of this block.

This does not explain why this has to be a separate block. Rob comment
stays valid - this belongs to parent node.

Best regards,
Krzysztof