From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-id: <56303DA3.5020306@samsung.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:44:43 +0530 From: Alim Akhtar MIME-version: 1.0 To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Mark Brown Cc: lee.jones@linaro.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC References: <1445863883-5187-1-git-send-email-alim.akhtar@samsung.com> <1445863883-5187-6-git-send-email-alim.akhtar@samsung.com> <56302514.4090407@samsung.com> <20151028015323.GZ28319@sirena.org.uk> <56303054.8060804@samsung.com> In-reply-to: <56303054.8060804@samsung.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed List-ID: Hello, On 10/28/2015 07:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28.10.2015 10:53, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> >>> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use. >>> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple. >> >> Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it >> being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that >> there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is >> intended to be the same). Though in the case of a MFD that information >> can be obtained from the MFD for the device. > > We can always differentiate later and introduce new compatible. > Declaring a compatible right now would be useful only if we really cared > about using the workaround on older DTBs. > > Since I cannot judge the difference (I don't have the datasheet of > S2MPS15) then I don't see the need of adding new compatible/name for the > "same device". > > Of course maybe there is such need? Alim? > Well I did think of keeping the changes as minimal as possible, like just have "{ "s2mps15-rtc", S2MPS14X }", since I don't have access to s2mps14 UM, I could not confirm that s2mps14 and s2mps15 are exactly the same w.r.t rtc block. So I proposed the current changes. Well I do agree with Mark here, a name/compatible matching with the pmic is good to at least avoid confusion while looking at the sysfs. > Best regards, > Krzysztof > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailout4.samsung.com (mailout4.samsung.com. [203.254.224.34]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fa8si4612385pab.1.2015.10.27.20.24.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from epcpsbgr2.samsung.com (u142.gpu120.samsung.co.kr [203.254.230.142]) by mailout4.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0NWW02I92USIJ5B0@mailout4.samsung.com> for rtc-linux@googlegroups.com; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:24:18 +0900 (KST) Message-id: <56303DA3.5020306@samsung.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:44:43 +0530 From: Alim Akhtar MIME-version: 1.0 To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Mark Brown Cc: lee.jones@linaro.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC References: <1445863883-5187-1-git-send-email-alim.akhtar@samsung.com> <1445863883-5187-6-git-send-email-alim.akhtar@samsung.com> <56302514.4090407@samsung.com> <20151028015323.GZ28319@sirena.org.uk> <56303054.8060804@samsung.com> In-reply-to: <56303054.8060804@samsung.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Reply-To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Hello, On 10/28/2015 07:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28.10.2015 10:53, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> >>> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use. >>> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple. >> >> Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it >> being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that >> there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is >> intended to be the same). Though in the case of a MFD that information >> can be obtained from the MFD for the device. > > We can always differentiate later and introduce new compatible. > Declaring a compatible right now would be useful only if we really cared > about using the workaround on older DTBs. > > Since I cannot judge the difference (I don't have the datasheet of > S2MPS15) then I don't see the need of adding new compatible/name for the > "same device". > > Of course maybe there is such need? Alim? > Well I did think of keeping the changes as minimal as possible, like just have "{ "s2mps15-rtc", S2MPS14X }", since I don't have access to s2mps14 UM, I could not confirm that s2mps14 and s2mps15 are exactly the same w.r.t rtc block. So I proposed the current changes. Well I do agree with Mark here, a name/compatible matching with the pmic is good to at least avoid confusion while looking at the sysfs. > Best regards, > Krzysztof > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.