On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:31:00AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:50:43AM +0200, Herve Codina wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:31:46 +0200
> > Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > We have the same construction with the pinctrl driver used in the LAN966x
> > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/mscc,ocelot-pinctrl.yaml
> > > >
> > > > The reset name is 'switch' in the pinctrl binding.
> > > > I can use the same description here as the one present in the pinctrl binding:
> > > > description: Optional shared switch reset.
> > > > and keep 'switch' as reset name here (consistent with pinctrl reset name).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think about that ?
> > >
> > > It would be good to document what it is shared with. So it seems to be
> > > the switch itself, pinctl and MDIO? Anything else?
> > >
> >
> > To be honest, I know that the GPIO controller (microchip,sparx5-sgpio) is
> > impacted but I don't know if anything else is impacted by this reset.
> > I can update the description with:
> > description:
> > Optional shared switch reset.
> > This reset is shared with at least pinctrl, GPIO, MDIO and the switch
> > itself.
> >
> > Does it sound better ?
>
> $dayjob hat off, bindings hat on: If you don't know, can we get someone
> from Microchip (there's some and a list in CC) to figure it out?
That is probably a good idea, there is potential for hard to find bugs
here, when a device gets an unexpected reset. Change the order things
probe, or an unexpected EPRODE_DEFER could be interesting.
Andrew
