On 27/10/2022 17:07, Andrew Davis wrote:
> On 10/27/22 2:33 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/10/2022 14:13, Andrew Davis wrote:
>>> Writing this bit can be handled by the syscon-reboot driver.
>>> Add this node to DT.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Tested-by: Fabian Vogt <fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Fabian Vogt <fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/nspire.dtsi | 7 +++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nspire.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nspire.dtsi
>>> index bb240e6a3a6f..48fbc9d533c3 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nspire.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nspire.dtsi
>>> @@ -172,7 +172,14 @@ rtc: rtc@90090000 {
>>> };
>>>
>>> misc: misc@900a0000 {
>>> + compatible = "ti,nspire-misc", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
>>
>> You have syscon and simple-mfd, but bindings in patch #1 say only syscon.
>>
>
> I'm not following, are you just saying my wording in the patch message just
> wasn't complete?
Your binding patch adds nspire compatible to the list of two items, so
you have two items in total - nspire followed by syscon.
What you implemented here is different.
>
> Or are you saying something more about nodes that are both syscon and simple-mfd?
> In that case, having both syscon and simple-mfd seems rather common, looks like
> you added the rule for it[0].
>
> Thinking on this, they almost represent the same thing. simple-mfd says "my child
> nodes should be considered devices", why do we need that? Couldn't we simply state
> that "syscon" node's children are always devices, I mean what else could they be,
> syscon is an MFD after all (and lives in drivers/mfd/).
No, syscon is not an MFD. Syscon means system controller and alone it
does not have children.
>
> "syscon" often just says, others can use the registers within this node, so as a
> different option, make "syscon" a property of "simple-mfd" nodes. I'm seeing all
> these examples of devices that should have been children of the "syscon" device,
> but instead use
>
> regmap = <&x>;
> syscon = <&x>;
>
> or similar and put the device node out somewhere random. And in those cases,
> wouldn't it have been more correct to use the normal "reg" and "regions" to
> define the registers belonging to the child node/device?..
Sorry, I do not follow. How this is even related to your patch?
Your bindings say A, DTS say B. A != B. This needs fixing.
Unless you are asking me what your device is in general. This I don't
really know, but if you want to use it as regmap provider for system
registers and as a parent of syscon-based reboot device, then your
device is syscon and simple-mfd. With a specific compatible. Was this
your question?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
