On 12/10/2022 09:16, Hal Feng wrote: >>>>> +properties: >>>>> + compatible: >>>>> + enum: >>>>> + - starfive,jh7110-reset >>>> >>>> 'reg' needed? Is this a sub-block of something else? >>> >>> Yes, the reset node is a child node of the syscon node, see patch 27 for detail. >>> You might not see the complete patches at that time due to technical issue of >>> our smtp email server. Again, I feel so sorry about that. >>> >>> syscrg: syscrg@13020000 { >>> compatible = "syscon", "simple-mfd"; >>> reg = <0x0 0x13020000 0x0 0x10000>; >>> >>> syscrg_clk: clock-controller@13020000 { >>> compatible = "starfive,jh7110-clkgen-sys"; >>> clocks = <&osc>, <&gmac1_rmii_refin>, >>> <&gmac1_rgmii_rxin>, >>> <&i2stx_bclk_ext>, <&i2stx_lrck_ext>, >>> <&i2srx_bclk_ext>, <&i2srx_lrck_ext>, >>> <&tdm_ext>, <&mclk_ext>; >>> clock-names = "osc", "gmac1_rmii_refin", >>> "gmac1_rgmii_rxin", >>> "i2stx_bclk_ext", "i2stx_lrck_ext", >>> "i2srx_bclk_ext", "i2srx_lrck_ext", >>> "tdm_ext", "mclk_ext"; >>> #clock-cells = <1>; >>> }; >>> >>> syscrg_rst: reset-controller@13020000 { >>> compatible = "starfive,jh7110-reset"; >>> #reset-cells = <1>; >> >> So the answer to the "reg needed?" is what? You have unit address but no >> reg, so this is not correct. > > Not needed in the reset-controller node, but needed in its parent node. We do not talk about parent node. Rob's question was in this bindings. Is this document a binding for the parent node or for this node? > I am sorry > for missing description to point it out in the bindings. I will rewrite all bindings > for the next version. Unit address here should be deleted. > >> >>> starfive,assert-offset = <0x2F8>; >>> starfive,status-offset= <0x308>; >>> starfive,nr-resets = <JH7110_SYSRST_END>; >>> }; >>> }; >>> >>> In this case, we get the memory mapped space through the parent node with syscon >>> APIs. You can see patch 13 for detail. >>> >>> static int reset_starfive_register(struct platform_device *pdev, const u32 *asserted) >>> { >> >> >> (...) >> >>> >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> + "#reset-cells": >>>>> + const: 1 >>>>> + >>>>> + starfive,assert-offset: >>>>> + description: Offset of the first ASSERT register >>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 >>>>> + >>>>> + starfive,status-offset: >>>>> + description: Offset of the first STATUS register >>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 >>>> >>>> These can't be implied from the compatible string? > > Definitely can. We do this is for simplifying the reset driver. The role of the bindings is not to simplify some specific driver in some specific OS... > Otherwise, we may need to define more compatibles because there > are multiple reset blocks in JH7110. Another case can be found at > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/altr,rst-mgr.yaml And why is this a problem? You have different hardware, so should have different compatibles. Otherwise we would have a compatible "all,everything" and use it in all possible devices. >>> These two properties are the key differences among different reset controllers. >> >> Different as in different compatibles? Please answer the questions..> >>> There are five memory regions for clock and reset in StarFive JH7110 SoC. They >>> are "syscrg", "aoncrg", "stgcrg", "ispcrg" and "voutcrg". Each memory region >>> has different reset ASSERT/STATUS register offset and different number of reset >>> signals. >> >> Then these are not exactly the same devices, so using one compatible for >> them does not look correct. > > One compatible can just be matched by one device? I think this is what > confuses me. I don't understand the question. > > Best regards, > Hal > Trim the replies - no need to quote everything (entire message following last reply/quote). Best regards, Krzysztof