On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 12:43 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: > On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 12:44 +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 12:02 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > Hi Nicolas, > > > > > > On Fri, 2020-06-12 at 19:13 +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > > > > Raspberry Pi 4's co-processor controls some of the board's HW > > > > initialization process, but it's up to Linux to trigger it when > > > > relevant. Introduce a reset controller capable of interfacing with > > > > RPi4's co-processor that models these firmware initialization routines > > > > as > > > > reset lines. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks! > > > > > If there is a good reason for the single DT specified reset id, I can > > > pick up patches 1 and 2. > > > > The idea here is to make sure we're reasonably covered against further > > changes > > in firmware. If we define constraints too narrow it can be a pain to support > > new features without breaking backwards compatibility in dt. > > Ok. > > > > If you change the dts patch 4 to use a number instead of the reset id > > > define for now, there wouldn't even be a dependency between these reset > > > and dts patches. > > > > I was under the impression that having an explicit definition was nice to > > have. > > What's troubling about creating the dependency? > > Just that the last patch has to wait for the reset patches to be merged > before it can be applied. TBH there is no hurry, this only provides a better design on something that's already available upstream. USB works on RPi4, so I don't mind if this gets delayed a release. Regards, Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
