On 9/11/20 9:26 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Crystal,
>
> On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 14:07 +0800, Crystal Guo wrote:
> [...]
>> Should I add the SoC-specific data as follows?
>> This may also modify the ti original code, is it OK?
>>
>> + data->reset_data = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>> +
>> + list = of_get_property(np, data->reset_data->reset_bits, &size);
>>
>> +static const struct common_reset_data ti_reset_data = {
>> + .reset_op_available = false,
>> + .reset_bits = "ti, reset-bits",
> ^
> That space doesn't belong there.
>
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct common_reset_data mediatek_reset_data = {
>> + .reset_op_available = true,
>> + .reset_bits = "mediatek, reset-bits",
>> +};
>
> I understand Robs comments as meaning "ti,reset-bits" should have been
> called "reset-bits" in the first place, and you shouldn't repeat adding
> the vendor prefix, as that is implied by the compatible. So this should
> probably be just "reset-bits".
Hmm, not sure about that. I think Rob wants the reset data itself to be added in
the driver as is being done on some other SoCs (eg: like in reset-qcom-pdc.c).
regards
Suman
>
> Otherwise this looks like it should work.
>
> regards
> Philipp
>
