Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] reset: eyeq: add platform driver

[Philipp Zabel]

Hi Théo,

On Mi, 2024-06-26 at 15:55 +0200, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> Hello Philipp,
> 
> On Tue Jun 25, 2024 at 11:17 AM CEST, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > On Do, 2024-06-20 at 19:30 +0200, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> > > Add Mobileye EyeQ reset controller driver, for EyeQ5, EyeQ6L and EyeQ6H
> > > SoCs. Instances belong to a shared register region called OLB and gets
> > > spawned as auxiliary device to the platform driver for clock.
> > > 
> > > There is one OLB instance for EyeQ5 and EyeQ6L. There are seven OLB
> > > instances on EyeQ6H; three have a reset controller embedded:
> > >  - West and east get handled by the same compatible.
> > >  - Acc (accelerator) is another one.
> > > 
> > > Each instance vary in the number and types of reset domains.
> > > Instances with single domain expect a single cell, others two.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  MAINTAINERS                |   1 +
> > >  drivers/reset/Kconfig      |  14 ++
> > >  drivers/reset/Makefile     |   1 +
> > >  drivers/reset/reset-eyeq.c | 563 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 
> > Should this be called reset-eyeq-olb or reset-eyeq5, in case a
> > different eyeq driver will have to be added in the future?
> 
> What about keeping reset-eyeq for the simplicity of it and using
> reset-eyeq7 for a theoretical future driver that gets used by EyeQ7 and
> above? Or any other revision.
> 
> Else it can be reset-eyeq5. OLB might be a concept that gets reused with
> different reset blocks inside (meaning reset-eyeq-olb wouldn't
> distinguish). You tell me if keeping *-eyeq is fine.

Either is fine by me. I just wanted to make sure this was given some
consideration after noticing the reset-eyeq5.c remnant in MAINTAINERS.

regards
Philipp