[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170607204916.n3wh3fkwbfctdv6s@rob-hp-laptop>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 15:49:16 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: reset: Add bindings for basic reset
controller
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:38:50PM +0930, Joel Stanley wrote:
> This adds the bindings documentation for a basic single-register reset
> controller.
>
> The bindings describe a single 32-bit register that contains up to 32
> reset lines, each deasserted by clearing the appropriate bit in the
> register. Optionally a property can be provided that changes this
> behaviour to assert on clear.
>
I think this is a good idea for kernel code, but not for bindings. We
don't really want per register bindings.
The problem with any generic/simple/basic binding is they always start
that way. Then we add one property at a time not in any well planned
way. I can easily come up with additions. For example, what about
self-clearing reset bits. Or 2 bits per reset. Or multiple resets that
have to be controlled together. 8 or 16-bit registers.
IRQs and GPIOs could also be described in some cases with just groups of
32-bit registers for set,clear,status,mask,etc., but we don't do that in
bindings for the same reasons.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists