Hi Philipp,
2015-02-13 12:47 GMT+01:00 Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 12.02.2015, 18:46 +0100 schrieb Maxime Coquelin:
> [...]
>> + soc {
>> + reset_ahb1: reset@40023810 {
>> + #reset-cells = <1>;
>> + compatible = "st,stm32-reset";
>> + reg = <0x40023810 0x4>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + reset_ahb2: reset@40023814 {
>> + #reset-cells = <1>;
>> + compatible = "st,stm32-reset";
>> + reg = <0x40023814 0x4>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + reset_ahb3: reset@40023818 {
>> + #reset-cells = <1>;
>> + compatible = "st,stm32-reset";
>> + reg = <0x40023818 0x4>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + reset_apb1: reset@40023820 {
>> + #reset-cells = <1>;
>> + compatible = "st,stm32-reset";
>> + reg = <0x40023820 0x4>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + reset_apb2: reset@40023824 {
>> + #reset-cells = <1>;
>> + compatible = "st,stm32-reset";
>> + reg = <0x40023824 0x4>;
>> + };
>
> These are mostly consecutive, single registers. I wonder if these are
> part of the same IP block and thus should be grouped together into the
> same reset controller node?
What I could to is to have two instances. One for AHB and one for APB domain.
Doing this, I will have one instance per domain, and only consecutive registers.
Is it fine for you?
Thanks,
Maxime
>
> regards
> Philipp
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
