Re: [PATCH] rtc: ds1307: add trickle charger device tree binding
From: Matti Vaittinen
Date: Fri Aug 29 2014 - 07:16:07 EST
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:40:02AM +0100, ext Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:34:25AM +0100, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:40:34AM -0700, ext Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 09:48:25AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It may be a bit of overkill, but I think a DT macro would be the most
> > > > maintainable solution here:
> > > >
> > > > #define DS1339_TRCKL_DIODE 0x08
> > > > #define DS1339_TRCKL_NODIODE 0x04
> > > > #define DS1339_TRCKL_R250 0x01
> > > > #define DS1339_TRCKL_R2000 0x02
> > > > #define DS1339_TRCKL_R4000 0x03
> > > >
> > > > trickle_setup = <DS1339_TRCKL_DIODE | DS1339_TRCKL_R250>;
> > > >
> > > > And the driver would take care of oring it with the enable pattern.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that sounds reasonable as well.
> > >
> > I thought of this too. However the ds1307 seems to be designed to work
> > with bunch of chips. What then when next chip supported by this driver
> > introduces 75, 1000 and 5000 ohm resistors? Or something else. (Or add
> > some other configuration). I do not see this approach to be
> > maintainable in long run.
> If a new chip comes out with new features, the driver will need an
> update anyhow. We have no guarantee that the register placement will be
> the same, let alone the layout.
This is why I originally also added the trickle_reg property. But let's
leave it out.
> If and when said new chip comes out we allocate a new compatible string.
> If it's compatible iwith (i.e. is a superset of) an existing device's
> programming model, we add that existing string as a fallback in the
> compatible list so old kernels can drive the subset of features they
> > I see strong possibility of polluting dt with endless amount of
> > defines. Furthermore I believe the benefits of these defines would be
> > negligible compared to effort maintaining defines and documentation of
> > them causes. Surely the one who needs to add dt node for this chip in
> > his board's dt has the manual for the chip he has on board. Especially
> > so if he knows the trickle charger there and wants to configure it.
> > The plain resistor type still gives zero information without knowing
> > the other details.
> I would rather that the driver had some idea of what it were doing
> rather than being a glorified copy routine.
> I would suggest we have two properties that describe the resistor's
> rating and whether or not there is a diode:
> trickle-resistor-ohms = <250>
> That's easy for a human to write and/or validate, we can easily extend
> it in future, requires no proliferation of macros, and describes the
> hardware rather than telling software what to do.
> The driver becomes a little more complicated, but gains sanity checking,
> which is a good thing.
This looks like a nice way. Problem is that I can not provide support for
all chips ds1307 supports. I have access to ds1339 variant only. I assume
the driver should thus reject this dt information for all other chips for
> I'm still worried that we have no idea what the device is intended to
> charge. Surely that's important?
In my case it will charge capcitor which provides Vbackup for short
Senile SW Specialist
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/