On 15/12/2017 at 08:34:55 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Alexandre Belloni > <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 15/12/2017 at 08:23:39 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Thanks for reply! > >> >> > >> >> Isn't this property of a SoC? The registers used by > >> >> syscon-poweroff/reboot are part of SoC power management unit. It does > >> >> not refer to any externals. Why then it should be put outside of soc? > >> > > >> > If these nodes have registers, then they should have a unit address > >> > and reg property. > >> > >> That's the point - they do not have unit address. > >> > > > > Should they be put under the syscon they are using? > > They are not using syscon but regmap provided by such external IP > block (for example this: > http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc3/source/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi#L153). > I guess you are proposing something like on imx7s: > http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc3/source/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s.dtsi#L539 > Yeah, exactly. Another example here: http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc3/source/arch/arm/boot/dts/gemini.dtsi#L32 It seems your poweroff and reboot bits are in registers that are in the pmu_system_controller so it makes sense to put them under it. I would even remove the regmap property and get the regmap from the parent first. This can easily be done while keeping the ABI backward compatibility. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- 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
