Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

2012-10-31 Thread Stephen Warren
On 10/31/2012 04:32 AM, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-30 11:02:05) >> On 10/29/2012 12:32 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: >>> Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-23 14:45:56) What do people think of this? Does it sound like a good idea to go ahead with a reset subsystem?

Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

2012-10-31 Thread Stephen Warren
On 10/31/2012 04:32 AM, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-30 11:02:05) On 10/29/2012 12:32 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-23 14:45:56) What do people think of this? Does it sound like a good idea to go ahead with a reset subsystem? Should we

Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

2012-10-30 Thread Stephen Warren
On 10/29/2012 12:32 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-23 14:45:56) >> What do people think of this? Does it sound like a good idea to go ahead >> with a reset subsystem? Should we simply add a new API to the common clock >> subsystem instead (and assume that reset and

Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

2012-10-30 Thread Stephen Warren
On 10/29/2012 12:32 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-23 14:45:56) What do people think of this? Does it sound like a good idea to go ahead with a reset subsystem? Should we simply add a new API to the common clock subsystem instead (and assume that reset and clock

Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

2012-10-29 Thread Mike Turquette
Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-23 14:45:56) > What do people think of this? Does it sound like a good idea to go ahead > with a reset subsystem? Should we simply add a new API to the common clock > subsystem instead (and assume that reset and clock domains match 1:1). > Should this be implemented

Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

2012-10-29 Thread Mike Turquette
Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-23 14:45:56) What do people think of this? Does it sound like a good idea to go ahead with a reset subsystem? Should we simply add a new API to the common clock subsystem instead (and assume that reset and clock domains match 1:1). Should this be implemented as

[RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

2012-10-23 Thread Stephen Warren
From: Stephen Warren This binding is intended to represent the hardware reset signals present internally in most IC (SoC, FPGA, ...) designs. Such a binding would allow the creation of a "reset subsystem", which could replace APIs such as the following Tegra-specific API: void

[RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

2012-10-23 Thread Stephen Warren
From: Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com This binding is intended to represent the hardware reset signals present internally in most IC (SoC, FPGA, ...) designs. Such a binding would allow the creation of a reset subsystem, which could replace APIs such as the following Tegra-specific API: void