On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:41:31PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:

Hi Andreas,

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:

quoted

Hi Mani,

Am 27.07.2018 um 20:45 schrieb Manivannan Sadhasivam:

quoted

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?

That is exactly what I tell folks not to do. Design the DT based on h/w 
blocks, not current desired driver split for some OS.

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?

If there's nothing shared then it is not a syscon. If you can create 
separate address ranges, then 2 nodes is probably okay. If the registers 
are all mixed up, then 1 node.

Rob