On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 17:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 13/07/2022 15:35, Tomer Maimon wrote:
>
> >>> +static int npcm8xx_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct npcm8xx_pinctrl *pctrl;
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + pctrl = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pctrl), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + if (!pctrl)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> + pctrl->dev = &pdev->dev;
> >>> + dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, pctrl);
> >>> +
> >>> + pctrl->gcr_regmap =
> >>> + syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible("nuvoton,npcm845-gcr");
> >>
> >> No. Use property. By this patchset, I would expect that you learnt from
> >> previous mistakes around this. Why repeating the same trouble second time?
> > You suggest to use phandle property like nuvoton,sysgcr even that the
> > NPCM8XX pin controller driver is used only NPCM8XX SoC, so the only
> > GCR node in the NPCM8XX SoC is nuvoton,npcm845-gcr?
>
> Yes. The previous case (reset driver, AFAIR) was also about driver used
> only in one SoC, wasn't it?
Actually not, the NPCM reset driver serves NPCM7XX and NPCM8XX and
probably other future BMC SoC's
Still, you suggest using the phandle property in the driver even if
the driver serves one SoC?
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Best regards,
Tomer
