On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 12:44 +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 12:02 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > Hi Nicolas, > > > > On Fri, 2020-06-12 at 19:13 +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > > > Raspberry Pi 4's co-processor controls some of the board's HW > > > initialization process, but it's up to Linux to trigger it when > > > relevant. Introduce a reset controller capable of interfacing with > > > RPi4's co-processor that models these firmware initialization routines as > > > reset lines. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulie...@suse.de> > > > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.za...@pengutronix.de> > > Thanks! > > > If there is a good reason for the single DT specified reset id, I can > > pick up patches 1 and 2. > > The idea here is to make sure we're reasonably covered against further changes > in firmware. If we define constraints too narrow it can be a pain to support > new features without breaking backwards compatibility in dt.
Ok. > > If you change the dts patch 4 to use a number instead of the reset id > > define for now, there wouldn't even be a dependency between these reset > > and dts patches. > > I was under the impression that having an explicit definition was nice to > have. > What's troubling about creating the dependency? Just that the last patch has to wait for the reset patches to be merged before it can be applied. regards Philipp
