Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ARM: dts: at91: Add the required `atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg` property

[Alexandre Belloni]

On 04/03/2022 15:29:45+0000, Sergiu.Moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 04.03.2022 16:53, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 04/03/2022 16:27:42+0200, Sergiu Moga wrote:
> >> Add the required `atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg` property to the `rtt` nodes
> >> of the board files that were missing it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sergiu Moga <sergiu.moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>   arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts | 4 ++++
> >>   arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts | 8 ++++++++
> >>   arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9rlek.dts  | 4 ++++
> >>   3 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts
> >> index beed819609e8..3c1f40b4a13e 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts
> >> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ dbgu: serial@fffff200 {
> >>                                status = "okay";
> >>                        };
> >>
> >> +                     rtc@fffffd20 {
> >> +                             atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg = <&gpbr 0x0>;
> >> +                     };
> >> +
> >>                        watchdog@fffffd40 {
> >>                                status = "okay";
> >>                        };
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts
> >> index 71f60576761a..1208bb580d14 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts
> >> @@ -102,6 +102,14 @@ mtd_dataflash@0 {
> >>                                };
> >>                        };
> >>
> >> +                     rtc@fffffd20 {
> >> +                             atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg = <&gpbr 0x0>;
> >> +                     };
> >> +
> >> +                     rtc@fffffd50 {
> >> +                             atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg = <&gpbr 0x4>;
> >> +                     };
> > Do we really need two RTCs with the exact same features on that board?
> > Is there a check failure hen the property is not there and the node is
> > disabled?
> >
> I can understand your point here. No, it is indeed not really needed 
> since, from what I can see, they are both disabled in the SoC file. The 
> reason why I added both was that I thought it would have been more 
> consistent. Do you think I should remove both in this file and keep the 
> changes in the other 2 files only?
> 

Well, I would keep the first node but not the second so that you have a
good example, ready to be enabled.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com