[PATCH v7 05/15] dt-bindings: Document the STM32 reset bindings

[mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com (Maxime Coquelin)]

2015-05-04 12:28 GMT+02:00 Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>:
> Am Samstag, den 02.05.2015, 11:01 +0100 schrieb Daniel Thompson:
>> On 02/05/15 08:55, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>> > 2015-05-01 10:08 GMT+02:00 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>:
> [...]
>> >> Do you intend the clock driver to use the same compatible string (given it
>> >> is the same bit of hardware).
>> >>
>> >> If so, is it better to use st,stm32f4-rcc here? It seems unlikey to me that
>> >> the register layout of the PLLs and dividers can be the same on the f7 parts
>> >> (and later).
>> >
>> > I agree we need a compatible dedicate to f4 series for clocks, and
>> > maybe even one for f429 (to be checked).
>> > For the reset part, we don't have this need.
>> >
>> > So either we use only "st,stm32f4" as you suggest, or we can have both
>> > in device tree:
>> >
>> > rcc: reset at 40023800 {
>> >      #reset-cells = <1>;
>> >      compatible = "st,stm32f4-rcc", "st,stm32-rcc";
>> >      reg = <0x40023800 0x400>;
>> > };
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>>
>> Having both makes sense. The reset driver probably doesn't care about
>> differences between F4 and F7 (I know very little about F7 but I can't
>> think of any obvious h/ware evolution that would confuse the current
>> reset driver).
>
> Seconded, this is exactly the way compatible string lists are supposed
> to be used.

Ok good, so we all agree.

I propose I keep "st,stm32-rcc" only for this series, as it does not
contain the clock driver.
The series adding the clock driver will add "st,stm32f4-rcc", or
"st,stm32f429-rcc" depending on clock driver needs.

Thanks,
Maxime

>
> [...]
>
> regards
> Philipp
>