From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 14/16] ARM: dts: Introduce STM32F429 MCU Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:18:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20150522091822.GF8557@lukather> References: <1431158038-3813-1-git-send-email-mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> <2282066.NWoIT9ZyLc@wuerfel> <13641152.Yt4ZI3oT6L@wuerfel> <1432285588.3929.28.camel@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2446001520252316360==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1432285588.3929.28.camel@pengutronix.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Philipp Zabel Cc: Mark Rutland , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Walleij , Will Deacon , Stefan Agner , Nikolay Borisov , Peter Meerwald , "linux-api@vger.kernel.org" , Lee Jones , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux-Arch , Daniel Thompson , Russell King , Pawel Moll , Jonathan Corbet , Jiri Slaby , Daniel Lezcano , Chanwoo Choi , Andy Shevchenko , Antti Palosaari , Geert Uytterhoeven "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org"
  • List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --===============2446001520252316360== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fd5uyaI9j6xoeUBo" Content-Disposition: inline --fd5uyaI9j6xoeUBo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. > >=20 > > Philip, Arnd, what do you think? >=20 > 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 --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --fd5uyaI9j6xoeUBo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVXvReAAoJEBx+YmzsjxAg9IUQALOLEJidOKVjhMCaeHVNcKN8 jBjSk07cUB2e9qfF+Yr/IpzSF9KBtH8MUmQlIk1lEwMk4zllj41FrzkGOkReaCvQ TKkY3rF3mliM8ORJz6GUVZ1vxFcID3EFNNPDzYD0fGvNyzBaXqTDyF76w0oQNKxT WRSwHn3nSqn1IiM1EPw+mJVi6z1sbafZOBYCNLxu/ZjKBaLnmfcKumfoXyb4r5TW 2k5bfEBHg7PEyiLKhCqqjXAAFHLRlkSMqtRYQV0F/rvpbyQ22iJraimagDYJc25Y LmeYJM726zs+4f9cizyyJV5BFkyWcBFJ2l32bvVuTTFU2RyZulVxlTsAgJ4WRDze wVgCbduCfnF5Q3texbhScqqgGH8N6OTsu/w+4oluOHAxw4yw5lRcPJEGC4D2kVGn /baHISJkwU4s0jfj1AEJ7U2zjxQ1rxC3/gpOWtXpZx4JdDSnYSMaRfaGmpSGNLqj 8cKmg5khuYN39/6Hv8faX739NhIh7NZIkbI0t+uyxDawolV/NGeeCJDf+RGWD9w4 APGrwJu+A41d9dxfpJODKAdc84hbqLt5p3uoCfLR+O4Av11XdvIZU0hKJz1I73/E rpvnJeFGfc+Gx/hiu9ajUfHKm77qXmyhoIkovhFV1amTFbxqP1471zifdQCX2aCn NWGerjHGvghTEjXTpTvw =ZcXg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fd5uyaI9j6xoeUBo-- --===============2446001520252316360== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel --===============2446001520252316360==--