Hi Linus, On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:53PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If clocks and resets are provided by the same hardware module, you can > > have a single (platform) driver registering both the clock and reset > > controllers. > > Cfr. drivers/clk/renesas/renesas-cpg-mssr.c. > > That is indeed an option. > > So I would say, clk & reset maintainers: would you prefer that I merge the > reset control into the clock driver as well, ask Philipp to drop the pending > reset control patches from his subsystem tree and have you manage the > combined driver and bindings? The reset/next pull requests are not merged into the arm-soc tree yet. I suppose I could retract the pull requests and drop the Gemini reset patches, if the patches in arm-soc/gemeni/dts are also dropped from arm-soc/for-next. > It seems to me as very ugly from a divide & conquer subsystem and file > split point of view. > > I seems elegant from the "make clocks a platform device" point of view. > > I am happy with either approach as long as it works. > > I guess it is up to the taste of the subsystem maintainers, especially > clk. > > If I get some time I might just hack this up and send the patches so > it is on the table as an alternative to the current v5 patch. Certainly it is > better than going back and augmenting the DT bindings. I have a slight preference for keeping the DT bindings simple, even if that means merging the reset controller into the clock driver. regards Philipp -- 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
