[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54BE7916.4060204@atmel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:49:42 +0100
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] mfd: Add atmel-st driver
Le 20/01/2015 16:05, Alexandre Belloni a écrit :
> On 20/01/2015 at 09:47:39 +0000, Lee Jones wrote :
>>>> This driver looks pretty pointless. Why can't you request the sysconf
>>>> registers from within the drivers themselves?
>>>>
>>>
>>> How would you probe the watchdog driver then? Would you had the
>>> "atmel,at91rm9200-st" compatible there?
>>>
>>> At some point in time, we should add the reset driver, would you also
>>> match it on "atmel,at91rm9200-st"?
>>>
>>> I'm fine with that as this allows to avoid the mfd driver.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I don't follow. Why can't each driver have their own
>> compatible strings?
>>
>
> The same IP provides a clocksource, a watchdog and is also the reset
> controller. I think that the DT guidelines requires that the DT
> describes the hardware and so use one compatible for that IP;
I would add also that the registers within the IP are kind of mixed,
there is no way to separate by logical functions.
Bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists