From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: p.zabel@pengutronix.de (Philipp Zabel) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:11:33 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/5] reset: add reset-simple to unify socfpga, stm32, sunxi, and zx2967 In-Reply-To: References: <20170816094701.30678-1-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <20170816094701.30678-2-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <51db563d-d6e1-18f1-01c1-3fdcf8269773@arm.com> Message-ID: <1502896293.7596.7.camel@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 14:12 +0200, Andreas F?rber wrote: > Hi Andre, > > Am 16.08.2017 um 13:30 schrieb Andre Przywara: > > On 16/08/17 10:46, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > +/** > > > + * struct reset_simple_devdata - simple reset controller properties > > > + * @active_low: if true, bits are cleared to assert the reset. Otherwise, bits > > > + *??????????????are set to assert the reset. > > > + */ > > > +struct reset_simple_devdata { > > > > > > + bool active_low; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static const struct reset_simple_devdata reset_simple_active_low = { > > > > > > + .active_low = true, > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static const struct of_device_id reset_simple_dt_ids[] = { > > > > > > + { .compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-clock-reset", > > > + .data = &reset_simple_active_low }, > > > > Can we have a additional generic compatible string here? New users of > > this driver then wouldn't need to explicitly enter their name into the > > driver, but could just use the generic name as a fallback. This would > > enable the driver without any Linux code change just by adding a DT node. > > > > compatible = "nexell,s5p6818-reset", "simple-reset"; > > > > Whenever we need a quirk (now or in the future), we can add the specific > > name into this structure along with the required workarounds. > > Same question about binding here. However the way it is done today, we > would also need some optional active-low property then or two different > compatible strings, as this is currently controlled via the DT matches. I'd like to decouple this from the issue at hand, which is de- duplicating simple reset code without device tree changes. I'll make a separate suggestion for a simple binding on top of this series. regards Philipp