Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] net: can: c_can: Add syscon/regmap RAMINIT mechanism

From: Wolfram Sang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:49:50 +0200

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 04:22:08PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 04:19 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > 
> >> As just TI is using this out of band RAMINIT mechanism, should it be "ti,syscon" or just "syscon"?
> > 
> > Yes, only TI uses this out-of-band RAMINIT (currently, at least). So, we
> > need an (optional) way to describe that. However, accessing syscon
> > registers in general is not TI specific and a generic way to do this
> > should be used. Which looks to me like the "syscon" property to allow
> > access to the register. Still, we should ask DT maintainers about it,
> > maybe they prefer a more precise property like "syscon-raminit" to allow
> > for further syscon extensions later or something...
> 
> What do you think about putting the bit information in the
> syscon-raminit phandle as additional arguments?

Then we'd have <n> syscon phandles for <n> instances?

Also, judging from Markus patch [1] there is already some
infrastructure, namely syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(). From a
glimpse, it doesn't look viable to add such a support to it.

So, I'd rather drop additional arguments.

Why would you like to have it encoded in DT?