On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 22:44 +0800, Suman Anna wrote:

On 9/11/20 9:26 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote:

quoted

Hi Crystal,

On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 14:07 +0800, Crystal Guo wrote:
[...]

quoted

Should I add the SoC-specific data as follows?
This may also modify the ti original code, is it OK?

+       data->reset_data = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
+
+       list = of_get_property(np, data->reset_data->reset_bits, &size);

+static const struct common_reset_data ti_reset_data = {
+       .reset_op_available = false,
+       .reset_bits = "ti, reset-bits",

                            ^
That space doesn't belong there.

quoted

+};
+
+static const struct common_reset_data mediatek_reset_data = {
+       .reset_op_available = true,
+       .reset_bits = "mediatek, reset-bits",
+};

I understand Robs comments as meaning "ti,reset-bits" should have been
called "reset-bits" in the first place, and you shouldn't repeat adding
the vendor prefix, as that is implied by the compatible. So this should
probably be just "reset-bits".

Hmm, not sure about that. I think Rob wants the reset data itself to be added in
the driver as is being done on some other SoCs (eg: like in reset-qcom-pdc.c).

regards
Suman

Hi Rob,

Can you help to comment about this point?
Modify "ti,reset-bits" to "reset-bits" or add "mediatek,reset-bits" ?

Many thanks~
Crystal

quoted

Otherwise this looks like it should work.

regards
Philipp