On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 20:41 +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > > Hi Mani, > > > > Am 27.07.2018 um 20:45 schrieb Manivannan Sadhasivam: > > > This patchset adds Reset Controller (RMU) support for Actions Semi > > > Owl SoCs, S900 and S700. For the Owl SoCs, RMU has been integrated into > > > the clock subsystem in hardware. Hence, in software we integrate RMU > > > support into common clock driver inorder to maintain compatibility. > > > > Can this not be placed into drivers/reset/ by using mfd-simple with a > > sub-node in DT? > > > > Actually I was not sure where to place this reset controller driver. When I > looked into other similar ones such as sunxi, they just integrated into the > clk subsystem. So I just chose that path. But yeah, this is hacky! > > But this RMU is not MFD by any means. Since the CMU (Clock) and RMU (Reset) > are two separate IPs inside SoC, we shouldn't describe it as a MFD driver. > Since > RMU has only 2 registers, the HW designers decided to use up the CMU memory > map. So, maybe syscon would be best option I think. What is your opinion?
Using syscon seems cleaner than stuffing the regmap into owl_clk_desc. > Even if we go for syscon, we should place the reset driver within clk > framework as I can see other SoCs like Mediatek are doing the same. But again > I'm not sure! Me neither. If the CMU and RMU are really separate and only share the memory map, a syscon driver could live in drivers/reset without problems. It's only when there are interactions between clocks and resets that you really want to have the reset driver integrated with clk. regards Philipp
