Hi,
On 16/08/17 16:11, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 14:12 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> Am 16.08.2017 um 13:30 schrieb Andre Przywara:
>>> On 16/08/17 10:46, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * struct reset_simple_devdata - simple reset controller properties
>>>> + * @active_low: if true, bits are cleared to assert the reset. Otherwise,
>>>> bits
>>>> + * are set to assert the reset.
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct reset_simple_devdata {
>>>>>>> + bool active_low;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct reset_simple_devdata reset_simple_active_low = {
>>>>>>> + .active_low = true,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct of_device_id reset_simple_dt_ids[] = {
>>>>>>> + { .compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-clock-reset",
>>>> + .data = &reset_simple_active_low },
>>>
>>> Can we have a additional generic compatible string here? New users of
>>> this driver then wouldn't need to explicitly enter their name into the
>>> driver, but could just use the generic name as a fallback. This would
>>> enable the driver without any Linux code change just by adding a DT node.
>>>
>>> compatible = "nexell,s5p6818-reset", "simple-reset";
>>>
>>> Whenever we need a quirk (now or in the future), we can add the specific
>>> name into this structure along with the required workarounds.
>>
>> Same question about binding here. However the way it is done today, we
>> would also need some optional active-low property then or two different
>> compatible strings, as this is currently controlled via the DT matches.
>
> I'd like to decouple this from the issue at hand, which is de-
> duplicating simple reset code without device tree changes.
Agreed, this is an orthogonal issue, actually being enabled by this series.
> I'll make a separate suggestion for a simple binding on top of this
> series.
Thanks! Happy to review it.
I actually have a user at hand already ...
Cheers,
Andre.
