[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140930144950.GQ1325@katana>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:49:50 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>, wg@...ndegger.com, tony@...mide.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mugunthanvnm@...com, george.cherian@...com,
balbi@...com, nsekhar@...com, nm@...com,
sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] net: can: c_can: Add syscon/regmap RAMINIT
mechanism
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 04:22:08PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 04:19 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> >> As just TI is using this out of band RAMINIT mechanism, should it be "ti,syscon" or just "syscon"?
> >
> > Yes, only TI uses this out-of-band RAMINIT (currently, at least). So, we
> > need an (optional) way to describe that. However, accessing syscon
> > registers in general is not TI specific and a generic way to do this
> > should be used. Which looks to me like the "syscon" property to allow
> > access to the register. Still, we should ask DT maintainers about it,
> > maybe they prefer a more precise property like "syscon-raminit" to allow
> > for further syscon extensions later or something...
>
> What do you think about putting the bit information in the
> syscon-raminit phandle as additional arguments?
Then we'd have <n> syscon phandles for <n> instances?
Also, judging from Markus patch [1] there is already some
infrastructure, namely syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(). From a
glimpse, it doesn't look viable to add such a support to it.
So, I'd rather drop additional arguments.
Why would you like to have it encoded in DT?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists