[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140910155236.GL2974@localhost>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:52:36 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] rtc: at91sam9: add DT bindings documentation
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 05:31:14PM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:07:02 +0200
> Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Yes, this essentially what I suggested in the thread (and my last reply)
> > and relying on syscon rather than a custom driver seems like a good
> > idea. It would allow early access to the registers too with the recently
> > proposed changes. It would not guarantee any kind of exclusivity,
> > though, but I guess that's tolerable?
>
> Yep, that's one of the concern I had with the syscon/regmap
> approach :-(, but I guess I'll give this solution a try and post a new
> version of this series ;-).
Perhaps we should see what Nicolas and Jean-Christophe says before
rushing into anything (again). ;)
I remember J-C considered loosing track of what was using a particular
backup register to be a regression. But I guess you can't have it both
ways (e.g. if you also want the early access soon provided by syscon).
I'll refresh my rtt and gmbr-node patches meanwhile, as they should be
needed in some form at least.
> Can we just leave the rtt as an rtc problem on the side for now and bind
> it to the rtc-at91sam9 driver.
>
> If we ever decide to add a new driver using the RTT for another purpose
> we will still be able to reference the RTT block like this (and keep
> the existing rtt node definition):
>
> rtt-based-rtc {
> compatible = "atmel,rtt-rtc";
> atmel,rtt = <&rtt>;
> atmel,time-reg = <&gpbr 0x0>;
> }
But why not do this from the start?
> rtt-based-xdev {
> compatible = "atmel,rtt-xdev";
> atmel,rtt = <&rtt>;
> /*...*/
> }
Johan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists