From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] reset: ti-rstctrl: use the reset-simple driver Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 07:10:58 -0800 Message-ID: <20180309151058.GQ5799@atomide.com> References: <20180307182143.58383-1-tony@atomide.com> <20180308024806.vombsjullqw5gpmz@rob-hp-laptop> <20180308160249.GI5799@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Philipp Zabel , Paul Parsons , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap , Dave Gerlach , Mark Rutland , Nishant Menon , Philipp Zabel , Suman Anna , Tero Kristo List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org * Rob Herring [180308 22:27]: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > In PRM, there are also registers for each interconnect device > > context lost and wake-up dependencies. We don't have a driver > > for that yet, it's handled by the SoC init code currently. > > Regardless of having/needing a driver, you should take a stab at doing > the binding at least. It doesn't make sense to do the binding of the > child without doing the parent. Sure, we have already partial binding documentation for PRM at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/omap/prcm.txt. I'll take a look at updating it for the reset controller. > > Unlike the binding for reset controller, the binding for > > wake-up dependencies and context lost should look similar > > binding to the clkctrl clock binding we have. That's because > > there are tons of those registers. > > > >> > + > >> > + gfx_rstctrl: rstctrl@4 { > >> > + compatible = "ti,rstctrl"; > >> > + reg = <0x4 0x4>; > >> > >> Anytime I see a single register in DT I worry about scaling. How many of > >> these in an SoC? > > > > There are not many instances of the reset controller. There > > is one register per interconnect instance for external > > accelerators, so about 3 - 10 reset controller registers > > per SoC. > > Okay, seems a reasonable number. > > However, couldn't you just have PRM node(s) and have that register as > a simple reset driver (along with anything else it handles). We could have a driver for PRM, but I'm not sure if doing a separate PRM driver helps much here. It seems like reset-simple already does the job for most part and can be enhanced as needed :) The missing piece is how to get the extra pieces of information to the consumer drivers.. That is the reset status and context lost status of each device. Regards, Tony