| Message ID | 20191129000827.650566-3-joel@jms.id.au |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | reset: Add ast2600 support | expand |
On Fri, 2019-11-29 at 10:38 +1030, Joel Stanley wrote: > From: Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> > > The AST2600 SoC contains the same LPC register set as the AST2500. If the LPC register set is exactly the same, shouldn't AST2600 reuse the AST2500 compatible, i.e.: compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-lpc-reset", "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-reset"; ? > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> > Signed-off-by: Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> > Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> > --- > drivers/reset/reset-simple.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/reset/reset-simple.c b/drivers/reset/reset-simple.c > index 067e7e7b34f1..795c9063fe7b 100644 > --- a/drivers/reset/reset-simple.c > +++ b/drivers/reset/reset-simple.c > @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id reset_simple_dt_ids[] = { > .data = &reset_simple_active_low }, > { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2400-lpc-reset" }, > { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-reset" }, > + { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-lpc-reset" }, > { .compatible = "bitmain,bm1880-reset", > .data = &reset_simple_active_low }, > { .compatible = "snps,dw-high-reset" }, regards Philipp
Hi Philipp. Thanks for your time. > On Dec 2, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-11-29 at 10:38 +1030, Joel Stanley wrote: >> From: Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> >> >> The AST2600 SoC contains the same LPC register set as the AST2500. > > If the LPC register set is exactly the same, shouldn't AST2600 reuse the > AST2500 compatible, i.e.: > compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-lpc-reset", "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-reset"; > ? I’m not sure. I let what was already there be my guide - the ast2500 LPC registers are the same as the ast2400 as well and those got their own compatibles. Is there a guideline written down somewhere that backs your thinking up? thanks - brad
Hi Brad, On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 09:51 -0500, Brad Bishop wrote: > Hi Philipp. Thanks for your time. > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2019-11-29 at 10:38 +1030, Joel Stanley wrote: > > > From: Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> > > > > > > The AST2600 SoC contains the same LPC register set as the AST2500. > > > > If the LPC register set is exactly the same, shouldn't AST2600 reuse the > > AST2500 compatible, i.e.: > > compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-lpc-reset", "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-reset"; > > ? > > I’m not sure. I let what was already there be my guide - the ast2500 > LPC registers are the same as the ast2400 as well and those got their > own compatibles. Is there a guideline written down somewhere that > backs your thinking up? I read section 2.3.1 "compatible" of the DeviceTree Specification [1] as supporting that view. If all three LPC reset controllers are in fact identical, I would argue that both ast2500 and ast2600 are compatible to ast2400 and should be specified as: compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-reset", "aspeed,ast2400-lpc-reset"; and: compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-lpc-reset", "aspeed,ast2400-lpc-reset"; respectively. [1] https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/download/v0.2/devicetree-specification-v0.2.pdf regards Philipp
diff --git a/drivers/reset/reset-simple.c b/drivers/reset/reset-simple.c index 067e7e7b34f1..795c9063fe7b 100644 --- a/drivers/reset/reset-simple.c +++ b/drivers/reset/reset-simple.c @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id reset_simple_dt_ids[] = { .data = &reset_simple_active_low }, { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2400-lpc-reset" }, { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-reset" }, + { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-lpc-reset" }, { .compatible = "bitmain,bm1880-reset", .data = &reset_simple_active_low }, { .compatible = "snps,dw-high-reset" },