Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] rtc: add qpnp rtc driver

From: Stanimir Varbanov
Date: Thu Jul 10 2014 - 11:43:13 EST

On 07/10/2014 04:08 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
>> +static const struct of_device_id qpnp_rtc_table[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "qcom,qpnp-rtc", },
>> + {}
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rtc_qpnp_table);
> We have had a lot of discussions related to how to name pm8x41
> drivers; as they obviously fall under pm8xxx in most peoples eyes.

IMO the pm8xxx is misleading already.

> As you guys have explained, QPNP is defining the split of address
> space and how interrupts are layed out. To me this does however not
> say anything related to the actual functionality; e.g. the rtc in this
> case.
> Are you by this patch saying that this is the one and only rtc
> hardware that will ever be spun under the QPNP umbrella?
> I would expect the naming to be more specific; and definitely the
> compatible to be specific.
> This concern goes for all the qpnp drivers.

QPNP "umbrella" includes 11 PMIC chips according to downstream kernel at
[1]. I think that every driver with qpnp in the name will support the
appropriate sub-function IP on every pmic of that list.

Of course the naming convention can be changed and for rtc we could say
rtc-pm8941 in compatible string.

compatible = "qcom,pm8941-rtc", "qcom,pma8084-rtc", "qcom,qpnp-rtc";

I haven't strong opinion on the naming.

Otherwise, I will do evaluate how difficult will be to merge "rtc-qpnp"
and rtc-pm8xxx. Those rtc peripherals looks similar.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at