Hi Théo, On Mi, 2024-06-26 at 15:55 +0200, Théo Lebrun wrote: > Hello Philipp, > > On Tue Jun 25, 2024 at 11:17 AM CEST, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > On Do, 2024-06-20 at 19:30 +0200, Théo Lebrun wrote: > > > Add Mobileye EyeQ reset controller driver, for EyeQ5, EyeQ6L and EyeQ6H > > > SoCs. Instances belong to a shared register region called OLB and gets > > > spawned as auxiliary device to the platform driver for clock. > > > > > > There is one OLB instance for EyeQ5 and EyeQ6L. There are seven OLB > > > instances on EyeQ6H; three have a reset controller embedded: > > > - West and east get handled by the same compatible. > > > - Acc (accelerator) is another one. > > > > > > Each instance vary in the number and types of reset domains. > > > Instances with single domain expect a single cell, others two. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > > > drivers/reset/Kconfig | 14 ++ > > > drivers/reset/Makefile | 1 + > > > drivers/reset/reset-eyeq.c | 563 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Should this be called reset-eyeq-olb or reset-eyeq5, in case a > > different eyeq driver will have to be added in the future? > > What about keeping reset-eyeq for the simplicity of it and using > reset-eyeq7 for a theoretical future driver that gets used by EyeQ7 and > above? Or any other revision. > > Else it can be reset-eyeq5. OLB might be a concept that gets reused with > different reset blocks inside (meaning reset-eyeq-olb wouldn't > distinguish). You tell me if keeping *-eyeq is fine. Either is fine by me. I just wanted to make sure this was given some consideration after noticing the reset-eyeq5.c remnant in MAINTAINERS. regards Philipp
