From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org (Manivannan Sadhasivam) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 22:59:46 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 0/9] Add Reset Controller support for Actions Semi Owl SoCs In-Reply-To: <20180807184710.GA26423@rob-hp-laptop> References: <20180727184527.13287-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180730151131.GA28633@mani> <20180807184710.GA26423@rob-hp-laptop> Message-ID: <20180808172946.GA4188@Mani-XPS-13-9360> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Rob, On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 12:47:10PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:41:31PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Andreas F?rber wrote: > > > Hi Mani, > > > > > > Am 27.07.2018 um 20:45 schrieb Manivannan Sadhasivam: > > > > This patchset adds Reset Controller (RMU) support for Actions Semi > > > > Owl SoCs, S900 and S700. For the Owl SoCs, RMU has been integrated into > > > > the clock subsystem in hardware. Hence, in software we integrate RMU > > > > support into common clock driver inorder to maintain compatibility. > > > > > > Can this not be placed into drivers/reset/ by using mfd-simple with a > > > sub-node in DT? > > That is exactly what I tell folks not to do. Design the DT based on h/w > blocks, not current desired driver split for some OS. > > > Actually I was not sure where to place this reset controller driver. When I > > looked into other similar ones such as sunxi, they just integrated into the > > clk subsystem. So I just chose that path. But yeah, this is hacky! > > > > But this RMU is not MFD by any means. Since the CMU (Clock) and RMU (Reset) > > are two separate IPs inside SoC, we shouldn't describe it as a MFD driver. Since > > RMU has only 2 registers, the HW designers decided to use up the CMU memory > > map. So, maybe syscon would be best option I think. What is your opinion? > > If there's nothing shared then it is not a syscon. If you can create > separate address ranges, then 2 nodes is probably okay. If the registers > are all mixed up, then 1 node. > I don't quite understand the reason for not being syscon. The definition of syscon says that, "System controller node represents a register region containing a set of miscellaneous registers. The registers are not cohesive enough to represent as any specific type of device." which exactly fits this case. Only the registers of CMU & RMU are shared and not the HW block! Can you please clarify? Thanks, Mani > Rob