[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a107f74a-00dd-26e5-69df-0a62a4cf8525@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:30:20 +0100
From: Philipp Rossak <embed3d@...il.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: lee.jones@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
wens@...e.org, linux@...linux.org.uk, jic23@...nel.org,
knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de, pmeerw@...erw.net,
davem@...emloft.net, hans.verkuil@...co.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
rask@...melder.dk, clabbe.montjoie@...il.com, sean@...s.org,
krzk@...nel.org, quentin.schulz@...e-electrons.com,
icenowy@...c.io, edu.molinas@...il.com, singhalsimran0@...il.com,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] dt-bindings: update the Allwinner GPADC device
tree binding for H3 & A83T
>> +Example for A33:
>> ths: ths@...5000 {
>> compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a33-ths";
>> reg = <0x01c25000 0x100>;
>> @@ -17,6 +40,27 @@ Example:
>> #io-channel-cells = <0>;
>> };
>>
>> +Example for H3:
>> + ths: thermal-sensor@...5000 {
>> + compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3-ths";
>> + reg = <0x01c25000 0x400>;
>> + clocks = <&ccu CLK_BUS_THS>, <&ccu CLK_THS>;
>> + clock-names = "bus", "mod";
>> + resets = <&ccu RST_BUS_THS>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 31 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + #thermal-sensor-cells = <0>;
>> + #io-channel-cells = <0>;
>> + };
>> +
>> +Example for A83T:
>> + ths: thermal-sensor@...4000 {
>> + compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a83t-ths";
>> + reg = <0x01f04000 0x100>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 41 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + #thermal-sensor-cells = <1>;
>> + #io-channel-cells = <0>;
>> + };
>> +
>
> I'm wondering if this is actually needed. We've used this convoluted
> constructs to be compatible with the old driver, but I'm not sure this
> is actually worth it now, and this is causing several issues, among
> which:
> - We need to have a bunch of quirks to handle all the DT cases.
> - We need to have an MFD, which isn't really optimal
>
> So I'd rather introduce a new compatible for the old SoCs, keep the
> old driver around, and simplify a lot that driver code that will ease
> further developments. And we can also get rid of the MFD in the
> process. I discussed it with Quentin, and he was ok with it, what do
> you think?
>
> (and that would involve creating a new file for the bindings you
> introduce here).
>
> Maxime
>
I think this is a good idea, and the desired way to rework the driver.
To sum up what we talked on IRC:
This will end up in removing the MFD driver and moving the interrupt
handling into the iio driver. At the end this will also simplify the IRQ
part.
Philipp
Powered by blists - more mailing lists