On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 22:00 +0800, Crystal Guo wrote:
> 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
> > >
> >
Dears,
I have uploaded the changes at
https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11805937/
Please help me to review, many thanks~~
regards
Crystal
>
