Re: [PATCHv1] rtc: bcm-iproc: Add support for Broadcom iproc rtc

[Arun Ramamurthy]

On 14-12-16 12:27 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
> On 12/16/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 December 2014 12:05:08 Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
> > > On 14-12-16 11:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 16 December 2014 11:22:30 arun.ramamurthy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > +       rtc: iproc_rtc@0x03026000 {
> > > > > +               compatible = "brcm,iproc-rtc";
> > > > > +               reg =   spru_bbl:               <0x03026000 0xC>,
> > > > > +                       crmu_pwr_good_status:   <0x0301C02C 0x14>,
> > > > > +                       crmu_bbl_auth:          <0x03024C74 0x8>;
> > > > > +               interrupts = spru_rtc_periodic: <GIC_SPI 142
> > > > > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > > > > +                            spru_alarm:        <GIC_SPI 133
> > > > > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > > >
> > > > The reg properties look really random, could it be that the registers
> > > > are really part of some other device that contains multiple functions?
> > > This RTC block is on a battery backed logic island and is accessed
> > > indirectly using the spru_bbl registers. The CRMU registers are required
> > > to read the power status and write to some authentication registers.
> > > Without writing to these authentication
> > > registers, we cannot access any of the spru_bbl registers. In conclusion
> > > I don't think the CRMU register accesses can be considered as another
> > > device access. Do you agree Arnd?
> >
> > It sounds like CRMU is some other unit aside from the RTC. Could this
> > be something like a generic system controller? I think it should
> > either have its own driver or use the syscon logic if that is what
> > this is.
> Giving that CRMU has scattered, miscellaneous control logic for multiple
> different peripherals, it probably makes more sense to use the syscon
> logic here.
Arnd, thanks for the feedback. If I was to write a separate driver for 
the CRMU, I would have to export certain functions and create an api 
that only this RTC driver would use. I am not sure that is efficient or 
required. What is your opinion?
Would it be better if I use the syson api in my current driver and move 
the CRMU registers to separate syscon device tree entry?

> > > > Also, what do you use the labels for?
> > > The labels are purely to improve readability of the device tree entry
> >
> > Please remove them then, they don't help at all.
Sure, I will remove the labels
> >     Arnd
--
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/