From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:18:22 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v8 14/16] ARM: dts: Introduce STM32F429 MCU In-Reply-To: <1432285588.3929.28.camel@pengutronix.de> References: <1431158038-3813-1-git-send-email-mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> <2282066.NWoIT9ZyLc@wuerfel> <13641152.Yt4ZI3oT6L@wuerfel> <1432285588.3929.28.camel@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20150522091822.GF8557@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:06:28AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > In the probe function, it would check the number of reg resources. > > If a single resource is passed, it would take it, else it would look > > the one named "reset". > > The driver and bindings would be the same for the two families, and > > the bindings would be backward compatible with sunxi ones. > > > > Philip, Arnd, what do you think? > > I'm not a fan of describing the register layout in the device tree as > detailed as the sunxi bindings do. I'd prefer the reg property to > describe the device's register address space with one entry per > contiguous block of registers. That's exactly what we do. > Unifying the mostly identical drivers is a good idea though, and reusing > preexisting bindings is better than inventing new ones. I favor the > socfpga binding, but I still like the sunxi bindings and this proposal > better than encoding the register offset in the reset index. I don't really get the difference between the socfpga and our bindings actually. Would you mind to explain a bit further what you don't like about it ? Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: