On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 03:57:09PM +0530, Manikanta Maddireddy wrote: > > > On 17-Jun-19 3:18 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:53:13PM +0530, Manikanta Maddireddy wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>> Ok. My point then is that you have no way to enforce this requirement on > >>> platforms that actually need it, I do not even know if there is a > >>> way you can do it (I was thinking along the lines of using a > >>> compatible string to detect whether the GPIO #PERST reset is mandatory) > >>> but maybe this is not even a SOC property. > >>> > >>> Maybe what I am asking is overkill, I just wanted to understand. > >>> > >>> I was just asking a question to understand how you handle the case > >>> where a GPIO pin definition is missing in DT for a platform that > >>> actually needs it, the driver will probe but nothing will work. > >>> > >>> It would be good to describe this and capture it in the commit log. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Lorenzo > >> I can't think of a easy way to enforce this requirement. As you said > >> compatible string is per SOC, so we can't use it for a platform. > >> This issue is present on only one platform, so it is hard to miss the > >> DT property. That is the reason for publishing this patch with out this > >> enforcement in driver. > >> > >> I thought for changing PERST# to GPIO for all platform, but testing is > >> a tedious job. Also I don't have Tegra20 and Tegra30 platforms. > > I can't help with that. > > > >> Do you want me to drop the patch or update the limitation in the commit > >> log? > > It is Thierry's call, if he is OK with it fine by me, please do > > update the commit log, it will help everybody understand. > > > > Lorenzo > > Sure, I will update the commit log in V5. > Please let me know if you completed reviewing this series, I will > send V5 addressing review comments in this patch. Post v5, we should be able to get it in v5.3, thanks. Lorenzo
