[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <629b9ed0-7b2d-7c5c-20b8-17289a76f097@suse.de>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:41:46 +0200
From: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roc He <hepeng@...oo.tv>,
蒋丽琴 <jiang.liqin@...iatech.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] dt-bindings: rtc: Add Realtek RTD1295
Hi Rob,
Am 23.08.2017 um 02:29 schrieb Rob Herring:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 03:36:29AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Add a binding for the RTC on the Realtek RTD119x/RTD129x SoC families.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/realtek,rtd119x.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/realtek,rtd119x.txt
>
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Thanks. Did you read the RFC question in the cover letter as well and
have any comments? Downstream has an rtc-base-year = <2014>; property
that I had left out in this RFC and due to your ack not included in v2.
Should we default to 2014 in the driver and add an optional base-year
property once we encounter a diverging device, or should we make it
required from the beginning? I did not spot any other rtc binding with
such a property and would appreciate a clarification.
Thanks in advance,
Andreas
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists