On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:20:14PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Hauke,
>
> On Sun, 2017-05-28 at 20:40 +0200, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> [...]
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/lantiq,reset.txt
> > @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
> > +Lantiq XWAY SoC RCU reset controller binding
> > +============================================
> > +
> > +This binding describes a reset-controller found on the RCU module on Lantiq
> > +XWAY SoCs.
> > +
> > +
> > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > +Required properties:
> > +- compatible : Should be one of
> > + "lantiq,reset-danube"
> > + "lantiq,reset-xrx200"
> > +- regmap : A phandle to the RCU syscon
> > +- offset-set : Offset of the reset set register
> > +- offset-status : Offset of the reset status register
> > +- #reset-cells : Specifies the number of cells needed to encode the
> > + reset line, should be 2.
> > + The first cell takes the reset set bit and the
> > + second cell takes the status bit.
> > +
> > +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > +Example for the reset-controllers on the xRX200 SoCs:
> > + reset0: reset-controller@0 {
> > + compatible = "lantiq,reset-xrx200";
> > +
> > + regmap = <&rcu0>;
>
> Why not place these nodes as children of &rcu0 ? This property would be
> superfluous then.
They are children. So it should be removed and made clear that these are
child nodes of rcu (here and in other patches in this series).
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
