[EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: dts: marvell: cp11x: Add reset controller node

[Wilson Ding]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:29 PM
> To: Wilson Ding <dingwei at marvell.com>; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
> devicetree at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> robh at kernel.org
> Cc: andrew at lunn.ch; gregory.clement at bootlin.com;
> sebastian.hesselbarth at gmail.com; krzk+dt at kernel.org; conor+dt at kernel.org;
> p.zabel at pengutronix.de; Sanghoon Lee <salee at marvell.com>;
> Geethasowjanya Akula <gakula at marvell.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: dts: marvell: cp11x: Add reset
> controller node
> 
> On 04/03/2025 20:08, Wilson Ding wrote:
> >
> > I did consider shrinking the syscon's register address range to make
> > the reset-controller node to be independent from the syscon node.
> > However, I found the syscon node is also referred by some devices for
> > miscellaneous configurations . The reset configuration register
> > happens to be located in between these registers and clock/GPIO
> > registers.
> >
> >> drop offset in your patch or unify everything into 'reg'.
> >>
> >
> > This is exactly what I proposed in v3 patch. Do I misunderstand you?
> >
> > CP11X_LABEL(swrst): reset-controller at 268 {
> > 	compatible = "marvell,armada8k-reset";
> > 	reg = <0x268 0x4>;
> > 	#reset-cells = <1>;
> > };
> 
> I don't see the other device being fixed here. How did you unify them?

This patch series is about the proposal of Armada8K's reset controller
dt-binding. The dt-bindings issues of clock/GPIO controllers have been
there for years. Having to say, it is not just a simple patch to fix it. It
will require to convert the dt-binding document into json schemas as
well as adapt these dt changes in the drivers. So I would suggest to
fixing it in later patches. How do you think about it?

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof