2015-05-01 10:08 GMT+02:00 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 30/04/15 17:20, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>
>> This adds documentation of device tree bindings for the
>> STM32 reset controller.
>>
>> Tested-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/reset/st,stm32-rcc.txt | 107
>> +++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/st,stm32-rcc.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/st,stm32-rcc.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/st,stm32-rcc.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..c1b0f8d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/st,stm32-rcc.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
>> +STMicroelectronics STM32 Peripheral Reset Controller
>> +====================================================
>> +
>> +The RCC IP is both a reset and a clock controller. This documentation
>> only
>> +documents the reset part.
>> +
>> +Please also refer to reset.txt in this directory for common reset
>> +controller binding usage.
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +- compatible: Should be "st,stm32-rcc"
>> +- reg: should be register base and length as documented in the
>> + datasheet
>> +- #reset-cells: 1, see below
>> +
>> +example:
>> +
>> +rcc: reset@40023800 {
>> + #reset-cells = <1>;
>> + compatible = "st,stm32-rcc";
>
>
> Do you intend the clock driver to use the same compatible string (given it
> is the same bit of hardware).
>
> If so, is it better to use st,stm32f4-rcc here? It seems unlikey to me that
> the register layout of the PLLs and dividers can be the same on the f7 parts
> (and later).
I agree we need a compatible dedicate to f4 series for clocks, and
maybe even one for f429 (to be checked).
For the reset part, we don't have this need.
So either we use only "st,stm32f4" as you suggest, or we can have both
in device tree:
rcc: reset@40023800 {
#reset-cells = <1>;
compatible = "st,stm32f4-rcc", "st,stm32-rcc";
reg = <0x40023800 0x400>;
};
What do you think?
>
>
>> + reg = <0x40023800 0x400>;
>> +};
>> +
>> +Specifying softreset control of devices
>> +=======================================
>> +
>> +Device nodes should specify the reset channel required in their "resets"
>> +property, containing a phandle to the reset device node and an index
>> specifying
>> +which channel to use.
>> +The index is the bit number within the RCC registers bank, starting from
>> RCC
>> +base address.
>> +It is calculated as: index = register_offset / 4 * 32 + bit_offset.
>> +Where bit_offset is the bit offset within the register.
>> +For example, for CRC reset:
>> + crc = AHB1RSTR_offset / 4 * 32 + CRCRST_bit_offset = 0x10 / 4 * 32 + 12
>> = 140
>> +
>> +example:
>> +
>> + timer2 {
>> + resets = <&rcc 256>;
>> + };
>> +
>> +List of valid indices for STM32F429:
>> + - gpioa: 128
>> + - gpiob: 129
>> + - gpioc: 130
>> + - gpiod: 131
>> + - gpioe: 132
>> + - gpiof: 133
>> + - gpiog: 134
>> + - gpioh: 135
>> + - gpioi: 136
>> + - gpioj: 137
>> + - gpiok: 138
>> + - crc: 140
>> + - dma1: 149
>> + - dma2: 150
>> + - dma2d: 151
>> + - ethmac: 153
>> + - otghs: 157
>> + - dcmi: 160
>> + - cryp: 164
>> + - hash: 165
>> + - rng: 166
>> + - otgfs: 167
>> + - fmc: 192
>> + - tim2: 256
>> + - tim3: 257
>> + - tim4: 258
>> + - tim5: 259
>> + - tim6: 260
>> + - tim7: 261
>> + - tim12: 262
>> + - tim13: 263
>> + - tim14: 264
>> + - wwdg: 267
>> + - spi2: 270
>> + - spi3: 271
>> + - uart2: 273
>> + - uart3: 274
>> + - uart4: 275
>> + - uart5: 276
>> + - i2c1: 277
>> + - i2c2: 278
>> + - i2c3: 279
>> + - can1: 281
>> + - can2: 282
>> + - pwr: 284
>> + - dac: 285
>> + - uart7: 286
>> + - uart8: 287
>> + - tim1: 288
>> + - tim8: 289
>> + - usart1: 292
>> + - usart6: 293
>> + - adc: 296
>> + - sdio: 299
>> + - spi1: 300
>> + - spi4: 301
>> + - syscfg: 302
>> + - tim9: 304
>> + - tim10: 305
>> + - tim11: 306
>> + - spi5: 308
>> + - spi6: 309
>> + - sai1: 310
>> + - ltdc: 314
>
>
> These numbers are stable for all STM32F4 family parts. Should this table go
> into a dt-bindings header file?
>
This has already been discussed with Philipp and Arnd in earlier
versions of this series [0].
I initially created a header file, and we decided going this way finally.
Regards,
Maxime
[0]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/10/692
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
