From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8C6C433FE for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 22:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243719AbhK3WF1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 17:05:27 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f49.google.com ([209.85.210.49]:45883 "EHLO mail-ot1-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232274AbhK3WF0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 17:05:26 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f49.google.com with SMTP id a23-20020a9d4717000000b0056c15d6d0caso32220606otf.12; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:02:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=nyqqj0x2xxep7p7TFP8Hievf+hkLs5bt7I85nyKY2kA=; b=Gm1mpJWT5P97yskdaTY0ZiidHo4RAL6WClQ4+e7X3vUG5kcO8QWfsKUXqnlZkPN9Qk rFrK33y+XlOPf4lR2IWaMvDCEK4m9PcyBMZJHWVfJBM+zZes6TveNHeBGHWgjoWXql4B R3BH7awyUAeGaU3ySbw7+oFHGi+a1OtBeiglEDhCWT6yi2S2dGmUgQZLJGR/pNt8xCVE oTFRMHUnK8D9fYgkylzGis+p9bs3BZf6Qh7BRhbqZL6wpxtFVes3t6KpQ/wJHV8Frro9 fBSOin0MzajLl0jC2d7MJe7y0QreKEkSGB6St654VwtKCNrMz86y0lAF47WCxYPchF6k sq0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532IMIMJDtMAWss42qn2akHX38709Cbx9bfqVk7flJ2gIgDtxDhr 7i/l0fEbG3vHYUH3QzWsgSBoZZ113A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyh2obM5pyW+RLRyFYGr02+ZnkGN+za3tNAplswfoYTEQGLXa8iULAw3rYFnLixvxdX2lFB+Q== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4f0e:: with SMTP id d14mr1856656otl.137.1638309726058; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:02:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from robh.at.kernel.org (66-90-148-213.dyn.grandenetworks.net. [66.90.148.213]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r11sm3510242oth.48.2021.11.30.14.02.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:02:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (nullmailer pid 3088815 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 22:02:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:02:04 -0600 From: Rob Herring To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Roger Quadros , tony@atomide.com, kishon@ti.com, nm@ti.com, vigneshr@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: memory-controllers: ti,gpmc: Add compatible for AM64 Message-ID: References: <20211123102607.13002-1-rogerq@kernel.org> <20211123102607.13002-2-rogerq@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:47:57PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/11/2021 11:26, Roger Quadros wrote: > > AM64 SoC contains the GPMC module. Add compatible for it. > > > > Newer SoCs don't necessarily map GPMC data region at the same place > > as legacy SoCs. Add reg-names "data", to provide this information to > > the device driver. > > > > Cc: Rob Herring > > Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros > > --- > > .../bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc.yaml | 12 +++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc.yaml > > index 25b42d68f9b3..1869cc6f949b 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc.yaml > > @@ -23,13 +23,20 @@ properties: > > items: > > - enum: > > - ti,am3352-gpmc > > + - ti,am64-gpmc > > - ti,omap2420-gpmc > > - ti,omap2430-gpmc > > - ti,omap3430-gpmc > > - ti,omap4430-gpmc > > > > reg: > > - maxItems: 1 > > + minItems: 1 > > + maxItems: 2 > > + > > + reg-names: > > + items: > > + - const: cfg > > + - const: data > > I see your driver handles cases with only one reg item, but I have other > question - is it correct to have older (ARMv7) platform with two reg > items? Or can am64-gpmc come with only one reg? > IOW, I am surprised there is no if-else case precising this minItems > requirement for different SocS. I don't think that is needed here. If the assumption is 'reg-names' is only present when there are 2 entries, then it is fine. Maybe 'reg-names' should be required for ti,am64-gpmc though. Rob