From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:49:36 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 6/6] ARM: at91: add Shutdown Controller (SHDWC) DT support In-Reply-To: <20120307173828.GD17087@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <20120302192844.GB21255@game.jcrosoft.org> <201203022024.19488.arnd@arndb.de> <20120307173828.GD17087@game.jcrosoft.org> Message-ID: <201203071849.36867.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 07 March 2012, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 20:24 Fri 02 Mar , Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 02 March 2012, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "atmel,at91sam9x5-shdwc")) { > > > + have_rtt = false; > > > + have_rtc = true; > > > + } else if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "atmel,at91sam9rl-shdwc")) { > > > + have_rtt = true; > > > + have_rtc = true; > > > + } else { > > > + have_rtt = true; > > > + have_rtc = false; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (have_rtc && of_property_read_bool(np, "atmel,wakeup-rtc-timer")) > > > + mode |= AT91_SHDW_RTCWKEN; > > > + > > > + if (have_rtt && of_property_read_bool(np, "atmel,wakeup-rtt-timer")) > > > + mode |= AT91_SHDW_RTTWKEN; > > > + > > > + at91_shdwc_write(AT91_SHDW_MR, wakeup_mode | mode); > > > + > > > > Hi Jean-Christophe, > > > > I don't understand why you check the specific part here. Isn't it enough to > > check the property when you already mandate that they can only be present > > on devices that support the specific wakeup? > > > > If there is a good explanation for that, maybe add a code comment why it's > > required. > some wake update source exist on few soc and we are not supposed to set the > bit otherwise > I still don't understand: Doesn't the property already give the information? In general, you should try to encode these things in specific properties instead of checking the compatible property. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ARM: at91: add Shutdown Controller (SHDWC) DT support Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:49:36 +0000 Message-ID: <201203071849.36867.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120302192844.GB21255@game.jcrosoft.org> <201203022024.19488.arnd@arndb.de> <20120307173828.GD17087@game.jcrosoft.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120307173828.GD17087@game.jcrosoft.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 07 March 2012, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 20:24 Fri 02 Mar , Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 02 March 2012, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "atmel,at91sam9x5-shdwc")) { > > > + have_rtt = false; > > > + have_rtc = true; > > > + } else if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "atmel,at91sam9rl-shdwc")) { > > > + have_rtt = true; > > > + have_rtc = true; > > > + } else { > > > + have_rtt = true; > > > + have_rtc = false; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (have_rtc && of_property_read_bool(np, "atmel,wakeup-rtc-timer")) > > > + mode |= AT91_SHDW_RTCWKEN; > > > + > > > + if (have_rtt && of_property_read_bool(np, "atmel,wakeup-rtt-timer")) > > > + mode |= AT91_SHDW_RTTWKEN; > > > + > > > + at91_shdwc_write(AT91_SHDW_MR, wakeup_mode | mode); > > > + > > > > Hi Jean-Christophe, > > > > I don't understand why you check the specific part here. Isn't it enough to > > check the property when you already mandate that they can only be present > > on devices that support the specific wakeup? > > > > If there is a good explanation for that, maybe add a code comment why it's > > required. > some wake update source exist on few soc and we are not supposed to set the > bit otherwise > I still don't understand: Doesn't the property already give the information? In general, you should try to encode these things in specific properties instead of checking the compatible property. Arnd