Am Samstag, den 02.05.2015, 11:01 +0100 schrieb Daniel Thompson:
> On 02/05/15 08:55, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> > 2015-05-01 10:08 GMT+02:00 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>:
[...]
> >> 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?
>
> Having both makes sense. The reset driver probably doesn't care about
> differences between F4 and F7 (I know very little about F7 but I can't
> think of any obvious h/ware evolution that would confuse the current
> reset driver).
Seconded, this is exactly the way compatible string lists are supposed
to be used.
[...]
regards
Philipp
--
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
