From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752254AbaLRINs (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2014 03:13:48 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:64528 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751919AbaLRINk (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2014 03:13:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:13:34 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.zummo@towertech.it, kernel@stlinux.com, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, wim@iguana.be, linux@roeck-us.net, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] watchdog: bindings: Provide ST bindings for ST's LPC Watchdog device Message-ID: <20141218081334.GO13885@x1> References: <1418834727-1602-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1418834727-1602-6-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <5479005.CEJLtxOOIa@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5479005.CEJLtxOOIa@wuerfel> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 17 December 2014 16:45:24 Lee Jones wrote: > > +- compatible : Must be one of: "st,stih407-lpc" "st,stih416-lpc" > > + "st,stih415-lpc" "st,stid127-lpc" > > +- reg : LPC registers base address + size > > +- interrupts : LPC interrupt line number and associated flags > > +- clocks : Clock used by LPC device (See: ../clock/clock-bindings.txt) > > +- st,lpc-mode : The LPC can run either one of two modes ST_LPC_MODE_RTC [0] or > > + ST_LPC_MODE_WDT [1]. One (and only one) mode must be > > + selected. > > > > I'm glad you got it to work with two drivers for the same device. > > With this binding, I'm still a bit unhappy about the st,lpc-mode property, > in particular since you rely on a shared include file for something that > can only be set in one way or another and always has to be present. > > Why not just use a boolean property that enforces one mode when present > and another mode when absent? There is nothing stopping me from doing that, and it was a consideration. I concluded that this method would be more explicit however. Both when describing our choices in DT and at a functional level within each of the drivers. Let me know if you fundamentally disagree and I can fix-up. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog