On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 22:44 +0800, Suman Anna wrote:
> 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
>
Hi Rob,
Can you help to comment about this point?
Modify "ti,reset-bits" to "reset-bits" or add "mediatek,reset-bits" ?
Many thanks~
Crystal
> >
> > Otherwise this looks like it should work.
> >
> > regards
> > Philipp
> >
>
