On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 05:34:08PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Add a binding document for the Broadcom STB reset controller, also known
> as SW_INIT-style reset controller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..6e5341b4f891
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> +Broadcom STB SW_INIT-style reset controller
> +===========================================
> +
> +Broadcom STB SoCs have a SW_INIT-style reset controller with separate
> +SET/CLEAR/STATUS registers and possibly multiple banks, each of 32 bit
> +reset lines.
> +
> +Please also refer to reset.txt in this directory for common reset
> +controller binding usage.
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible: should be brcm,brcmstb-reset
> +- reg: register base and length
> +- #reset-cells: must be set to 1
> +
> +Example:
> +
> + reset: reset-controller@8404318 {
> + compatible = "brcm,brcmstb-reset";
> + reg = <0x8404318 0x30>;
Based on this address, should this be a sub-node of something else? Or
not even a sub-node and just make the parent be a reset provider?
Rob
