Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2015 19:24:04 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 05/15] dt-bindings: Document the STM32 reset bindings | From | Maxime Coquelin <> |
| |
2015-05-05 18:07 GMT+02:00 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>: > On 05/05/15 16:42, Philipp Zabel wrote: >> >> Am Dienstag, den 05.05.2015, 17:19 +0200 schrieb Maxime Coquelin: >>>>> >>>>> For example, includes/dt-bindings/mfd/stm32f4-rcc.h would look like: >>>>> >>>>> #define GPIOA 0 >>>>> #define GPIOB 1 >>>>> ... >>>>> #define LTDC 186 >> >> >> That looks a bit fragile. >> At least the defines for the indices should be properly namespaced, >> check out include/dt-bindings/gpio/tegra-gpio.h for a similar case. > > > Good point. > >>>>> #define STM32F4_RESET(x) (x + 128) >>>>> #define STM32F4_CLOCK(x) (x + 384) > > > Thinking more about this point, if we are going to follow hardware if might > be better to have: > > #define STM32F4_RCC_AHB1_GPIOA 0 > #define STM32F4_RCC_AHB1_GPIOA 1 > ... > #define STM32F4_RCC_APB2_LTDC 26 > > > #define STM32F4_AHB1_RESET(x) (STM32F4_RCC_AHB1_##x##_BIT + (0x10 * 8)) > #define STM32F4_AHB2_RESET(x) (STM32F4_RCC_AHB2_##x##_BIT + (0x14 * 8)) > ... > #define STM32F4_APB2_RESET(x) (STM32F4_RCC_APB2_##x##_BIT + (0x24 * 8)) > > Its more typing (or copy 'n pasting) by at least every number now maps > directly to the datasheet.
As said in Philipp's reply, I like the idea.
Regards, Maxime > > > >>>>> >>>>> Then, in DT, a reset would be described like this: >>>>> >>>>> timer2 { >>>>> resets = <&rcc STM32F4_RESET(TIM2)>; >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> Phillip, Daniel, does that look acceptable to you? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Doesn't look unreasonable. >>>> >>>> I am a little uneasy simply because there are very few similar header >>>> files >>>> in that directory but I haven't thought of a better idea. >>> >>> >>> Since this file will be shared by both clock and reset drivers, I >>> don't see better option. >>> I will implement it in v8 if Philipp agrees. >> >> >> Are the device tree maintainers happy with this idiom spreading? >> Except for the point above, I think this is acceptable. >> >> regards >> Philipp >> >
| |