> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed: support for AST2700 > > On Tue, 2024-08-20 at 01:52 +0000, Ryan Chen wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed: support for > > > AST2700 > > > > > > On Mon, 2024-08-19 at 03:05 +0000, Ryan Chen wrote: > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: aspeed: support for > > > > > > AST2700 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2024-08-14 at 06:35 +0000, Ryan Chen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Didn't I see in another patch one die is cpu and one is > > > > > > > > io? > > > > > > > > Use > > > > > > > > those in the compatible rather than 0 and 1 if so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I want to align with our datasheet description. > > > > > > > It will but scu0 and scu1 register setting. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we document that relationship in the binding? Rob's > > > > > > suggestion seems more descriptive. > > > > > Hello, > > > > > Do you want me document it in yaml file or just in commit > > > > > message? > > > > > > > > Hello Rob, Andrew, > > > > I will add in yaml file in description. Like following. > > > > > > > > description: > > > > The Aspeed System Control Unit manages the global behaviour of > > > > the SoC, > > > > configuring elements such as clocks, pinmux, and reset. > > > > + In AST2700, it has two soc combination. Each soc include its > > > > own > > > > scu register control. > > > > + ast2700-scu0 for soc0, ast2700-scu1 for soc1. > > > > > > > > Is that will be better way ? > > > > > > What Rob is suggesting is to add the compatibles "aspeed,ast2700- > > > scu- > > > cpu" and "aspeed,ast2700-scu-io", and then in the description say > > > something like: > > > > > > The AST2700 integrates both a CPU and an IO die, each with their > > > own > > > SCU. The "aspeed,ast2700-scu-cpu" and "aspeed,ast2700-scu-io" > > > compatibles correspond to SCU0 and SCU1 respectively. > > > > > Hello Andrew, > > Sorry, for correspond for ast2700 datasheet, the description is > > scu0/scu1. > > System Control Unit #0 (SCU0)/ System Control Unit #1 (SCU1) why not > > we > > Keep align with datasheet statement? > > Well, IMO we have an opportunity do better in the compatibles. I expect we > should take advantage of it. As some support for Rob's suggestion, the > datasheet chapter for SCU1 calls it "SCUIO" in the first sentence of the > description. Further, there are only two SCUs, and I don't think the mapping of > "cpu" to 0 and "io" to 1 is too difficult to keep track of, certainly not if it's > written in the binding documentation (as long as these names are accurate!). > The argument works both ways but I don't think it's contentious that using the > indexes is _less_ descriptive. > > That said, this is just my semi-informed opinion. It's up to you to decide what > names you're going to push for. Rob's suggestion seems reasonable to me > though. > Understood, I think I will keep ast2700-scu0,ast2700-scu1, and I will also align with Our datasheet generates to be consistence. scu0 and scu1. > Andrew
