From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] clk: add ARM syscon ICST device tree bindings Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 09:43:47 -0700 Message-ID: <20151023164347.GB19782@codeaurora.org> References: <1444916813-31024-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <1444916813-31024-9-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20151015192325.GN4558@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Arnd Bergmann , Russell King , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , Rob Herring , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Michael Turquette , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/23, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 10/15, Linus Walleij wrote: > > >> +Required properties: > >> +- lock-offset: the offset address into the system controller where the > >> + unlocking register is located > >> +- vco-offset: the offset address into the system controller where the > >> + ICST control register is located (even 32 bit address) > > > > Is there any reason why we don't use a reg property for this? > > Usually reg = <> is used with two (or more) tokens: > > reg = ; > > The exception being things like I2C addresses which > are just one token. > > Since in this case, there is a "mother" reg property in the > syscon-compatible node, which we are indexing into, > it is confusing to use the same name for subnodes. > > Also there is a bunch of precedents doing it like this > for sybdevices to system controllers, just > git grep offset Documentation/devicetree/bindings > will give you a bunch of them. > Ok. I'm no DT expert, but it seems odd to have subnodes without a reg property. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 09:43:47 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 08/13] clk: add ARM syscon ICST device tree bindings In-Reply-To: References: <1444916813-31024-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <1444916813-31024-9-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20151015192325.GN4558@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20151023164347.GB19782@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/23, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 10/15, Linus Walleij wrote: > > >> +Required properties: > >> +- lock-offset: the offset address into the system controller where the > >> + unlocking register is located > >> +- vco-offset: the offset address into the system controller where the > >> + ICST control register is located (even 32 bit address) > > > > Is there any reason why we don't use a reg property for this? > > Usually reg = <> is used with two (or more) tokens: > > reg = ; > > The exception being things like I2C addresses which > are just one token. > > Since in this case, there is a "mother" reg property in the > syscon-compatible node, which we are indexing into, > it is confusing to use the same name for subnodes. > > Also there is a bunch of precedents doing it like this > for sybdevices to system controllers, just > git grep offset Documentation/devicetree/bindings > will give you a bunch of them. > Ok. I'm no DT expert, but it seems odd to have subnodes without a reg property. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project