Hello Baruch,
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:33:24 +0200
Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Miquèl,
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:36:32PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > From: Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add compatible strings for AP806 and CP110 that are part of the
> > Armada 8k/7k line of SoCs.
> >
> > Add a note on the differences in the size of the control area in
> > different bindings. This is an existing difference between the
> > Armada 375 binding and the other boards already supported. The new
> > AP806 and CP110 bindings are similar to the existing Armada 375 in
> > this regard.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > [<miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: reword, additional details]
> > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt | 24
> > +++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5
> > deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt
> > index 24aacf8948c5..9b7b2c03cc6f 100644 ---
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt +++
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt @@
> > -7,17 +7,31 @@ Required properties: marvell,armada375-thermal
> > marvell,armada380-thermal marvell,armadaxp-thermal
> > + marvell,armada-ap806-thermal
> > + marvell,armada-cp110-thermal
> >
> > - reg: Device's register space.
> > Two entries are expected, see the examples below.
> > - The first one is required for the sensor register;
> > - the second one is required for the control register
> > - to be used for sensor initialization (a.k.a.
> > calibration).
> > + The first one points to the status register (4B).
> > + The second one points to the control registers
> > (8B).
> > + Note: with legacy bindings, the second entry
> > pointed
> > + only to the so called "control MSB" ("control 1"),
> > was
> > + 4B wide and did not let the possibility to reach
> > the
> > + "control LSB" ("control 0") register. This is only
> > + allowed for compatibility reasons in Armada
> > + 370/375/38x/XP DT nodes.
>
> "allowed" is not the right term, IMO. Legacy compatibles MUST point
> to the MSB control register to preserve compatibility with existing
> DTs.
>
> The original patch had a list of legacy and non-legacy compatibles. I
> think we need to keep them.
Maybe I should reword this paragraph because we both agree on the
meaning:
"
Note: Legacy bindings are only supported with Armada 370/375/38x/XP
compatibles. The second memory resource entry only points to
"control MSB/control 1", is 4 bytes wide and is preventing any access
to "control LSB/control 0".
"
Does this sounds better to you?
Thank you,
Miquèl
>
> baruch
>
> > -Example:
> > +Examples:
> >
> > + /* Legacy bindings */
> > thermal@d0018300 {
> > compatible = "marvell,armada370-thermal";
> > - reg = <0xd0018300 0x4
> > + reg = <0xd0018300 0x4
> > 0xd0018304 0x4>;
> > };
> > +
> > + ap_thermal: thermal@6f8084 {
> > + compatible = "marvell,armada-ap806-thermal";
> > + reg = <0x6f808C 0x4>,
> > + <0x6f8084 0x8>;
> > + };
>
--
Miquel Raynal, 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
