On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:14:07 +0100 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/19/2018 03:10 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:49:31 +0100 > > Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 11/19/2018 11:01 AM, Mason Yang wrote: > >>> Document the bindings used by the Renesas R-Car D3 RPC controller. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <masonccyang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> .../devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt > >>> new file mode 100644 > >>> index 0000000..8286cc8 > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > >>> +Renesas R-Car D3 RPC controller Device Tree Bindings > >>> +---------------------------------------------------- > >>> + > >>> +Required properties: > >>> +- compatible: should be "renesas,rpc-r8a77995" > >>> +- #address-cells: should be 1 > >>> +- #size-cells: should be 0 > >>> +- reg: should contain 2 entries, one for the registers and one for the direct > >>> + mapping area > >>> +- reg-names: should contain "rpc_regs" and "dirmap" > >>> +- interrupts: interrupt line connected to the RPC SPI controller > >> > >> Do you also plan to support the RPC HF mode ? And if so, how would that > >> look in the bindings ? > > > > Not sure this approach is still accepted, but that's how we solved the > > problem for the flexcom block [1]. > > > > [1]https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.20-rc3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-flexcom.txt > > That looks pretty horrible. > > In U-Boot we check whether the device hanging under the controller node > is JEDEC SPI flash or CFI flash and based on that decide what the config > of the controller should be (SPI or HF). Not sure that's much better,but > at least it doesn't need extra nodes which do not really represent any > kind of real hardware. > The subnodes are not needed, you can just have a property that tells in which mode the controller is supposed to operate, and the MFD would create a sub-device that points to the same device_node. Or we can have a single driver that decides what to declare (a spi_controller or flash controller), but you'd still have to decide where to place this driver...
