On 28/08/2024 10:25, Varshini.Rajendran@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 27/08/24 6:18 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 27/08/2024 11:50, Varshini.Rajendran@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> Apologies for the delay in response.
>>>
>>> On 31/07/24 2:00 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> On 29/07/2024 09:09, Varshini Rajendran wrote:
>>>>> Add device tree file for SAM9X7 SoC family.
>>>>>
>>>>> Co-developed-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Varshini Rajendran <varshini.rajendran@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + can1: can@f8004000 {
>>>>> + compatible = "bosch,m_can";
>>>>> + reg = <0xf8004000 0x100>, <0x300000 0xbc00>;
>>>>> + reg-names = "m_can", "message_ram";
>>>>> + interrupts = <30 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>,
>>>>> + <69 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
>>>>> + interrupt-names = "int0", "int1";
>>>>> + clocks = <&pmc PMC_TYPE_PERIPHERAL 30>, <&pmc PMC_TYPE_GCK 30>;
>>>>> + clock-names = "hclk", "cclk";
>>>>> + assigned-clocks = <&pmc PMC_TYPE_CORE PMC_UTMI>, <&pmc PMC_TYPE_GCK 30>;
>>>>> + assigned-clock-rates = <480000000>, <40000000>;
>>>>> + assigned-clock-parents = <&pmc PMC_TYPE_CORE PMC_UTMI>, <&pmc PMC_TYPE_CORE PMC_UTMI>;
>>>>> + bosch,mram-cfg = <0x7800 0 0 64 0 0 32 32>;
>>>>> + status = "disabled";
>>>>> + };
>>>>> +
>>>>> + tcb: timer@f8008000 {
>>>>> + compatible = "microchip,sam9x7-tcb","atmel,sama5d2-tcb", "simple-mfd", "syscon";
>>>>
>>>> Why this is simple-mfd without children?
>>>
>>> The tcb node will have each TC (Timer Counter) Block as a child when it
>>> is configured to be used as either one of the following modes Timer or
>>> Counter / Capture / PWM.
>>
>> And where are these children? What does it mean "will have", in context
>> when? DTS is static, if you do not have here children then this is not a
>> simple-mfd.
>>
> I understand your concern. But the thing is that, each tc block is
> configured as a child and it can be configured in 3 different modes with
> different compatibles. In the current dts (i.e., sam9x75_curiosity
> board) we don't have a use case for the tcb, hence there are no child
> nodes defined. But there are instances where it can be defined in the
> dts, say for a custom board using sam9x7 SoC. In that case the
Where are these instances? Can you point me to DTS?
> simple-mfd usage is justified, if I am not wrong. If this justification
> doesn't suffice, then declaring child nodes with one mode as default
If I understand correctly: some out of tree, non-upstream project wants
this. Sorry, but out of tree does not matter. So it is not a correct
justification.
With such argument you could claim that everything needs simple-mfd
because some broken out-of-tree code adds there children.
> which can be overridden in the dts and kept disabled in the dtsi should
> be the other plausible way. Please let me know your suggestions.
No clue, please post complete binding and complete DTS so we can review
these.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
