[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130813100348.GA28762@ulmo>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:03:49 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] PCI: mvebu: add support for reset on GPIO
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:30:30AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Thierry Reding,
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:09:56 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> > > +- reset-gpios: optional gpio to PERST#
> > > +- reset-delay-ms: delay in ms to wait after reset de-assertion
> >
> > I remember some recent discussion about this, and we now have this reset
> > framework, so perhaps it makes more sense to use the reset binding for
> > this? Cc'ing Stephen (as part of the device tree bindings maintainers
> > team) who was involved in that recent reset bindings discussion.
>
> I also thought about this, but the reset framework seems to be designed
> for "reset controller" IPs, i.e special IPs that are controlling reset
> signals. Looking at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/reset.txt,
> I'm not sure to see how this would apply to GPIO-controlled reset
> signals.
See:
http://www.mail-archive.com/devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org/msg36900.html
which seems to have carried over to this at some point:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg00521.html
Some of the messages in between I can't find in any archive, sorry.
Thierry
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists