On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 05:34:08PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Add a binding document for the Broadcom STB reset controller, also known > as SW_INIT-style reset controller. > > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt | 27 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..6e5341b4f891 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/brcm,reset.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ > +Broadcom STB SW_INIT-style reset controller > +=========================================== > + > +Broadcom STB SoCs have a SW_INIT-style reset controller with separate > +SET/CLEAR/STATUS registers and possibly multiple banks, each of 32 bit > +reset lines. > + > +Please also refer to reset.txt in this directory for common reset > +controller binding usage. > + > +Required properties: > +- compatible: should be brcm,brcmstb-reset > +- reg: register base and length > +- #reset-cells: must be set to 1 > + > +Example: > + > + reset: reset-controller@8404318 { > + compatible = "brcm,brcmstb-reset"; > + reg = <0x8404318 0x30>;
Based on this address, should this be a sub-node of something else? Or not even a sub-node and just make the parent be a reset provider? Rob
