On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 04:22:08PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 09/30/2014 04:19 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > >> As just TI is using this out of band RAMINIT mechanism, should it be "ti,syscon" or just "syscon"? > > > > Yes, only TI uses this out-of-band RAMINIT (currently, at least). So, we > > need an (optional) way to describe that. However, accessing syscon > > registers in general is not TI specific and a generic way to do this > > should be used. Which looks to me like the "syscon" property to allow > > access to the register. Still, we should ask DT maintainers about it, > > maybe they prefer a more precise property like "syscon-raminit" to allow > > for further syscon extensions later or something... > > What do you think about putting the bit information in the > syscon-raminit phandle as additional arguments? Then we'd have <n> syscon phandles for <n> instances? Also, judging from Markus patch [1] there is already some infrastructure, namely syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(). From a glimpse, it doesn't look viable to add such a support to it. So, I'd rather drop additional arguments. Why would you like to have it encoded in DT?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
