Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: bus: da8xx-mstpri: new driver

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

2016-10-31 10:52 GMT+01:00 Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@xxxxxx>:
> Hi Bartosz,
>
> On Monday 31 October 2016 03:10 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> 2016-10-31 5:30 GMT+01:00 Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 07:35:55PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>> Create the driver for the da8xx master peripheral priority
>>>> configuration and implement support for writing to the three
>>>> Master Priority registers on da850 SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/bus/ti,da850-mstpri.txt    |  20 ++
>>>>  drivers/bus/Kconfig                                |   9 +
>>>>  drivers/bus/Makefile                               |   2 +
>>>>  drivers/bus/da8xx-mstpri.c                         | 266 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  4 files changed, 297 insertions(+)
>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/ti,da850-mstpri.txt
>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/bus/da8xx-mstpri.c
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/ti,da850-mstpri.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/ti,da850-mstpri.txt
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..225af09
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/ti,da850-mstpri.txt
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>>>> +* Device tree bindings for Texas Instruments da8xx master peripheral
>>>> +  priority driver
>>>> +
>>>> +DA8XX SoCs feature a set of registers allowing to change the priority of all
>>>> +peripherals classified as masters.
>>>> +
>>>> +Documentation:
>>>> +OMAP-L138 (DA850) - http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruh82c/spruh82c.pdf
>>>> +
>>>> +Required properties:
>>>> +
>>>> +- compatible:                "ti,da850-mstpri", "syscon" - for da850 based boards
>>>
>>> Drop syscon. Doesn't look like it is needed and the example doesn't
>>> match.
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> it is needed: syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible() fails without it. I
>> fixed the example instead.
>
> Why are master priority registers under syscon? This driver should be
> the only entity touching them. So do we need an MFD driver?
>

It should, but syscfg0 registers are mapped all over the place. I
thought it would be safer to put them under syscon and Kevin agreed.

Thanks,
Bartosz Golaszewski