Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] ARM: DTS: da850: Add cfgchip syscon node | From | David Lechner <> | Date | Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:24:06 -0500 |
| |
On 10/28/2016 12:08 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> writes: > >> On Wednesday 26 October 2016 09:38 PM, David Lechner wrote: >>> On 10/25/2016 10:06 PM, David Lechner wrote: >>>> Add a syscon node for the SoC CFGCHIPn registers. This is needed for >>>> the new usb phy driver. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@lechnology.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 4 ++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>> index f79e1b9..6bbf20d 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi >>>> @@ -188,6 +188,10 @@ >>>> }; >>>> >>>> }; >>>> + cfgchip: cfgchip@1417c { >>> >>> I wonder if there is a more generic name instead of cfgchip@. Is there a >>> preferred generic name for syscon nodes? >> >> I did not find anything in ePAPR, but chip-controller might be more >> appropriate. >> >>> >>>> + compatible = "ti,da830-cfgchip", "syscon"; >> >> Looks like we need "simple-mfd" too in the compatible list? >> >> I think we can also fold patch 5/5 into this patch and add the cfgchip >> along with USB phy child node included. >> >> If you respin the patch, I can drop 4/5 and 5/5 that I have queued and >> included the updated patch instead. > > Sekhar, what's your opinion of having this syscon just for CFGCHIP* vs > a single syscon for the whole SYSCFG0 region. > > The drivers/bus driver from Bartosz is also using SYSCFG0 registers, and > proposing a sysconf ro this region, but it will need to exclude the > CFGCHIPn registers if we also have this syscon.
What about the pinmux registers, which are already being used separately too?
> > I tend to think we should just have one for the whole SYSCFG0 which > this series could use. > > Unfortunately, the PHY driver is already merged and it references the > syscon by compatible. The PHY driver should probably be fixed to find > its syscon by phandle, and then maybe we could move to a single syscon > for SYSCFG0?
I agree that this should be change, but I was thinking we should use syscon_node_to_regmap(np->parent) since the phy node should be a child of the syscon node.
> > Let us know your preference, I don't have a very strong feeling either > way, but since we're already part way down the path of the CFGCHIP > syscon, we should keep it and later migrate it to one for all of > SYSCFG0. > > Kevin >
| |