Hi Heiko,
? 2016/2/2 5:17, Heiko St?bner ??:
> Hi David,
>
> Am Montag, 1. Februar 2016, 16:54:38 schrieb David.Wu:
>> ? 2016/1/30 20:39, Heiko Stuebner ??:
>>> Am Samstag, 30. Januar 2016, 20:01:45 schrieb David Wu:
>>>> As rk3368 contained two separated iodomain areas, this was
>>>> determined to use which regmap base address.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Wu <david.wu at rock-chips.com>
>>> I don't think we need to specify this on a driver level. Both GRF areas
>>> are
>>> "General register files" only located in two separate power-domains.
>>> So the rockchip,grf property should work for both. Especially as nothing
>>> keeps designers from introducing yet another GRF-area somewhere else ;-)
>>>
>>> >From when I started working on the rk3368, I still have a preliminary
>>>
>>> patches for that sitting here, so I've attached on how I envisoned that to
>>> work.
>> Okay, i agree to you, but it make someone a little confused just from
>> the drive code,
>> not DT file, about pmugrf regmap base address.:-)
>>
>> How do you feel about intergating GRF and PMU drivers in one driver?
>> Thanks!
> I will very strongly disagree here ;-) .
> Similar to the power-domains being part of the pmu, the io-domains are
> part of their individual GRFs. So if you want it really clean and tidy the way
> to go foward will be the attached patches. Compile-tested only.
Thanks for your reply, the patchs look better than mine.
I have tested them on sdk board and i found something may be wrong.
"parent->of_node" instead of "parent", as the parent is not null if
parent-node not used.
if (parent->of_node) {
iod->grf = syscon_node_to_regmap(parent->of_node);
} else {
dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "falling back to old binding\n");
iod->grf = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(np, "rockchip,grf");
}
> Other things like the usbphy control should move there as well in the long
> run. But that's not immediate necessary.
>
>
> Heiko
