Re: [PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: power: reset: Add regmap support to the SYSCON reboot-mode bindings

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:03 AM Sergey Semin
<Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 04:14:38PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:03:40PM +0300, Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Optional regmap property will be used to refer to a syscon-controller
> > > having a reboot tolerant register mapped.
> >
> > NAK. It should simply be a child node of the 'syscon-controller'.
>
> Hm, It's dilemma. The driver maintainer said ack, while you disagree.)
> So the code change will be merged while the doc-part won't? Lets discuss then
> to settle the issue.
>
> Why 'syscon-reboot' can be out of syscon-controller node, while
> 'syscon-reboot-mode' can't?

Look at the history and you will see one was reviewed by DT
maintainers and one wasn't.

> They both belong to the same usecase: save
> cause id and reboot. So having similar properties-set and declaring their
> nodes someplace nearby is natural.

Which is what I'm asking for. Where else in the tree does it make
sense to locate the 'syscon-reboot-mode' node? Locate nodes where they
logically belong.

> According to the driver 'syscon-reboot'
> can't lack the regmap property because it's mandatory, while here you refuse
> to have even optional support. Additionally in most of the cases the
> 'syscon-reboot' nodes aren't declared as a child of a system controller
> node. Why 'syscon-reboot-mode' can't work in a similar way?

There's plenty of bad or "don't follow current best practice" examples
in the tree for all sorts of things. That is not a reason for doing
something in a new binding or adding to an existing one.

Rob