On 07/10/2024 17:59, Rob Herring wrote: > [Some people who received this message don't often get email from robh@xxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > This email is not from Hexagon’s Office 365 instance. Please be careful while clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to this email. > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 03:32:42PM +0000, POPESCU Catalin wrote: >> On 05/10/2024 20:26, Rob Herring wrote: >>> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from robh@xxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >>> >>> This email is not from Hexagon’s Office 365 instance. Please be careful while clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to this email. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 02:07:39PM +0200, Catalin Popescu wrote: >>>> Add compatible value "mmc-pwrseq-simple-reset" to support reset control >>>> instead of gpios. Reset controls being refcounted, they allow to use >>>> shared resets or gpios across drivers. Support of reset control is >>>> limited to one single reset control. >>> Can't you do this without a binding change? Just use reset controls when >>> there is only 1 GPIO. >> That's a good question. The idea was to keep in place the gpio support >> w/o impacting any platform using pwrseq-simple. > Why would it matter? If not shared, then the behavior should be the > same. If shared, we want to maintain the broken behavior? Indeed, you're right. I will provide a new patchset w/o the binding change and using reset control for 1 gpio use-case. >> Also, later on when support for a list of reset gpios will be added to >> the reset framework, this would not work anymore... > Why not? > > How an OS handles reset-gpios is up to the OS. It can evolve. The > binding can't evolve because it is an ABI. > > Also, a list is kind of broken to begin with for a "generic" binding. > What's the order the lines should be asserted/deasserted? What about > timing requirements? You don't know because every device is different. > This binding would not be accepted now, so extending it is questionable. > > Rob
