[PATCH 3/6] reset: hisilicon: add reset-hi3660

[p.zabel@pengutronix.de (Philipp Zabel)]

Am Dienstag, den 22.11.2016, 10:42 +0100 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 5:34:05 PM CET zhangfei wrote:
> > On 2016?11?22? 16:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:49:18 PM CET Zhangfei Gao wrote:
> > >> +static const struct hisi_reset_channel_data hi3660_iomcu_rst[] = {
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_I2C0] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x20, 3),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_I2C1] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x20, 4),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_I2C2] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x20, 5),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_I2C6] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x20, 27),
> > >> +};
> > >> +
> > >> +static struct hisi_reset_controller_data hi3660_iomcu_controller = {
> > >> +       .nr_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(hi3660_iomcu_rst),
> > >> +       .channels = hi3660_iomcu_rst,
> > >> +};
> > >> +
> > >> +static const struct hisi_reset_channel_data hi3660_crgctrl_rst[] = {
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_I2C3] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x78, 7),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_I2C4] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x78, 27),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_I2C7] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x60, 14),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_SD] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x90, 18),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_SDIO] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x90, 20),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_UFS] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x84, 12),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_UFS_ASSERT] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x84, 7),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_PCIE_SYS] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x84, 26),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_PCIE_PHY] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x84, 27),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_PCIE_BUS] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x84, 31),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_USB3OTG_PHY] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x90, 3),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_USB3OTG] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x90, 5),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_USB3OTG_32K] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x90, 6),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_USB3OTG_AHB] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x90, 7),
> > >> +       [HI3660_RST_USB3OTG_MUX] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x90, 8),
> > >> +};
> > > I think you can avoid the trap of the ABI incompatibility if
> > > you just define those as in the binding as tuples, using #reset-cells=2.
> > >
> > > In particular for the first set, it seems really silly to redefine
> > > the numbers when there is just a simple integer number.
> > 
> > Could you clarify more, still not understand.
> > The number is index of the arrays, and the index will be used in dts.
> > The arrays lists the registers offset and bit shift.
> > For example:
> > 
> > [HI3660_RST_I2C0] = HISI_RST_SEP(0x20, 3), means register offset : 0x20, and bit shift = 3.
> > 
> > And Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/reset.txt
> > Required properties:
> > #reset-cells:   Number of cells in a reset specifier; Typically 0 for nodes
> >                  with a single reset output and 1 for nodes with multiple
> >                  reset outputs.

This is just a suggestion, for reset controllers where the reset lines
can reasonably be enumerated by a single integer. If there is a good
reason to use more complicated bindings, more cells can be used.
That being said, I dislike having to spread register/bit information
throughout the device trees at the consumer/phandle sites, if the
register/bit information absolutely has to be put into the device tree,
I'd prefer a binding similar to ti-syscon, where it's all in one place.

> You can easily enumerate the registers that contain reset bits here,
> so just use one cell for the register and another one for the index.

Changing the reset cells is an incompatible change, and this is not a
straight forward register/bit mapping in hardware either. There are
currently three registers involved: enable (+0x0), disable (+0x4), and
status (+0x8). Also, what if in the future one of these reset bits have
to be handled inverted (as just happened for hi3519)?

regards
Philipp