On 9/8/20 1:49 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:26 PM Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> On 8/26/20 6:09 AM, Crystal Guo wrote: >>> On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 03:02 +0800, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:03:22AM +0800, Crystal Guo wrote: >>>>> The TI syscon reset controller provides a common reset management, >>>>> and is suitable for MTK SoCs. Add compatible 'mediatek,infra-reset', >>>>> which denotes to use ti reset-controller driver directly. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Crystal Guo <crystal.guo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/ti-syscon-reset.txt | 1 + >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/ti-syscon-reset.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/ti-syscon-reset.txt >>>>> index ab041032339b..5a0e9365b51b 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/ti-syscon-reset.txt >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/ti-syscon-reset.txt >>>>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ Required properties: >>>>> "ti,k2l-pscrst" >>>>> "ti,k2hk-pscrst" >>>>> "ti,syscon-reset" >>>>> + "mediatek,infra-reset", "ti,syscon-reset" >>>> >>>> You need your own binding doc. If you can use the same driver then fine, >>>> but that's a separate issue. There's also reset-simple driver if you >>>> have just array of 32-bit registers with a bit per reset. >>>> >>>> Don't repeat 'ti,reset-bits' either. >>> >>> Do you mean I should add a Mediatek reset binding doc, although Mediatek >>> reuse the TI reset controller directly? >> >> Hmm, how do you envision not repeating the same bits in a separate binding? > > I mean 'ti,reset-bits' isn't really something that should have been in > DT in the first place, but rather implied by the compatible string. Ok, should I be deprecating this and move this data to driver then? I am assuming that is how you are envisioning the new Mediatek binding to be atleast. regards Suman > >> Does it help if I convert this to YAML first without a ti, prefix in the file name? > > No, I don't think this should be a shared binding. The driver may be > able to be shared, but that's independent from the binding. > > Rob >
