[PATCH v4 1/4] Documentation: dt-bindings: Describe SROMc configuration

[k.kozlowski@samsung.com (Krzysztof Kozlowski)]

On 30.10.2015 15:58, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>  Hello!
> 
>>> Add documentation for new subnode properties, allowing bank configuration.
>>> Based on u-boot implementation, but heavily reworked.
>>
>> Please, carefully look at:
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/gpmc-eth.txt
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/ti-gpmc.txt
> 
>  Thank you very much. Indeed, this looks very similar. By the way, should i document smsc over sromc in the same manner, writing
> devicetree/bindings/net/sromc-eth.txt?
> 
>  This is a short reply for now, i'll make longer one (or just a new version) after studying these existing bindings and trying to
> apply them.

Existing SROMC bindings document is small so one document for everything
should be sufficient. This can be always split if new type of devices
will be using SROMC (BTW, do you know of any other devices using SROMC
on Exynos?).

> 
>  Pankaj:
> 
>>> +&sromc {
>>> +       pinctrl-names = "default";
>>> +       pinctrl-0 = <&srom_ctl>, <&srom_ebi>;
>>> +
>>> +       ethernet at 07000000 {
>>> +               compatible = "smsc,lan9115";
>>> +               reg = <0x07000000 0x10000>;
>>> +               phy-mode = "mii";
>>> +               interrupt-parent = <&gpx0>;
>>> +               interrupts = <5 8>;
>>> +               reg-io-width = <2>;
>>> +               smsc,irq-push-pull;
>>> +               smsc,force-internal-phy;
>>> +
>>> +               samsung,srom-bank = <3>;
>>> +               samsung,srom-data-width = <2>;
>>> +               samsung,srom-timing = <1 9 12 1 9 1 1>;
>>
>> I think this is not correct. We can't change binding of "smsc,lan9115"
>> which is already documented here [1]. These samsung specific srom
>> properties should be in srom node or its subnode, but not in this way.
> 
>  So, if you look at gpmc-eth.txt, you'll see that this approach is perfectly valid (this is a reply to another msg, just don't want
> to post one more single-line reply).


Yes, the binding of smsc,lan9115 is not changed.

Putting srom properties in separate bank node would be good also but
then some mapping (connection) between ethernet and bank should be added
probably...

Best regards,
Krzysztof