Subject: [PATCH v4 01/12] dt-bindings: thermal: Describe Armada AP806 and CP110

From: [email-masked] (Miquel RAYNAL)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 01:43:20 +0100

Hello Baruch,

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:33:24 +0200
Baruch Siach <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Miqu?l,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:36:32PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > From: Baruch Siach <[email-masked]>
> > 
> > Add compatible strings for AP806 and CP110 that are part of the
> > Armada 8k/7k line of SoCs.
> > 
> > Add a note on the differences in the size of the control area in
> > different bindings. This is an existing difference between the
> > Armada 375 binding and the other boards already supported. The new
> > AP806 and CP110 bindings are similar to the existing Armada 375 in
> > this regard.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <[email-masked]>
> > [<[email-masked]>: reword, additional details]
> > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt | 24
> > +++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5
> > deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt
> > index 24aacf8948c5..9b7b2c03cc6f 100644 ---
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt +++
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/armada-thermal.txt @@
> > -7,17 +7,31 @@ Required properties: marvell,armada375-thermal
> > marvell,armada380-thermal marvell,armadaxp-thermal
> > +		marvell,armada-ap806-thermal
> > +		marvell,armada-cp110-thermal
> >  
> >  - reg:		Device's register space.
> >  		Two entries are expected, see the examples below.
> > -		The first one is required for the sensor register;
> > -		the second one is required for the control register
> > -		to be used for sensor initialization (a.k.a.
> > calibration).
> > +		The first one points to the status register (4B).
> > +		The second one points to the control registers
> > (8B).
> > +		Note: with legacy bindings, the second entry
> > pointed
> > +		only to the so called "control MSB" ("control 1"),
> > was
> > +		4B wide and did not let the possibility to reach
> > the
> > +		"control LSB" ("control 0") register. This is only
> > +		allowed for compatibility reasons in Armada
> > +		370/375/38x/XP DT nodes.  
> 
> "allowed" is not the right term, IMO. Legacy compatibles MUST point
> to the MSB control register to preserve compatibility with existing
> DTs.
> 
> The original patch had a list of legacy and non-legacy compatibles. I
> think we need to keep them.

Maybe I should reword this paragraph because we both agree on the
meaning:

"
Note: Legacy bindings are only supported with Armada 370/375/38x/XP
compatibles. The second memory resource entry only points to
"control MSB/control 1", is 4 bytes wide and is preventing any access
to "control LSB/control 0".
"

Does this sounds better to you?

Thank you,
Miqu?l

> 
> baruch
> 
> > -Example:
> > +Examples:
> >  
> > +	/* Legacy bindings */
> >  	thermal at d0018300 {
> >  		compatible = "marvell,armada370-thermal";
> > -                reg = <0xd0018300 0x4
> > +		reg = <0xd0018300 0x4
> >  		       0xd0018304 0x4>;
> >  	};
> > +
> > +	ap_thermal: thermal at 6f8084 {
> > +		compatible = "marvell,armada-ap806-thermal";
> > +		reg = <0x6f808C 0x4>,
> > +		      <0x6f8084 0x8>;
> > +	};  
> 

-- 
Miquel Raynal, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com