On 08/11/2022 15:30, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On 2022/11/08 20:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 07/11/2022 11:34, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
>>> Initial version of devicetree sources for NX1 SoC and boards.
>>>
>>> NX1 SoC belongs to the UniPhier armv8 architecture platform, and is
>>> designed for IoT and AI/ML application fields.
>>>
>>
>>> +
>>> + soc_glue: syscon@1f800000 {
>>> + compatible = "socionext,uniphier-nx1-soc-glue",
>>> + "simple-mfd", "syscon";
>>> + reg = <0x1f800000 0x2000>;
>>> +
>>> + pinctrl: pinctrl {
>>> + compatible = "socionext,uniphier-nx1-pinctrl";
>>
>> So instead of documenting the hardware precisily, you have one big bag
>> for everything under simple-mfd. This is not how the SoC should be
>> described in DTS.
>
> Sorry I don't understand. This is inherited from the previous descriptions,
> but is there some example to express DTS correctly about that?
I think yes, although it actually depends what is this hardware.
Generally speaking, do not use simple-mfd and syscon when these are not
really simple devices. There are quite many in your DTS, which got my
attention. Instead - have regular device with or without children.
There is no real need to have this a simple-mfd with one children
without any resources (no address space, no clocks, no interrupts, nothing).
Why this syscon/mfd and pinctrl is not a regular, one device?
>
>>
>>> + };
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> + soc-glue@1f900000 {
>>> + compatible = "simple-mfd";
>>
>> No, it is not allowed on its own. You need a specific compatible and
>> bindings describing its children.
>
> I saw the definition of "simple-mfd" itself is only in mfd/mfd.txt.
>
> Currently there are only efuse devices as children, and this space means
> nothing. I think it had better define the devices directly.
You need to start describe the hardware. efuse is an efuse, not MFD.
pinctrl is pinctrl not MFD + pinctrl.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
