From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dgilbert@interlog.com (Douglas Gilbert) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:32:27 -0400 Subject: [RFC PATCH] rtc: rtc-at91rm9200: manage IMR depending on revision In-Reply-To: <1364908007-5150-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> References: <1364573029-19346-5-git-send-email-jhovold@gmail.com> <1364908007-5150-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> Message-ID: <515AFA0B.7020509@interlog.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 13-04-02 09:06 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre > --- > Hi all, > > The funny thing is that I was writing exactly the same code as Johan's > when he posted his series. > > So, here is my single patch, with the comment about the readback stolen from > Johan's, but without the way to determine with IP is buggy and which one is > not... > After having dug the possibility to read the IP revision, I discovered that it > is not possible to use this information ("version" register offset changing > according to... IP version number: well done!). > In conclusion, I guess that the only way to determine if we need the workaround > is to use the DT. > One remark though: if we use the compatibility string for this purpose, I fear > that we would twist the meaning of this information: SoC using an > "atmel,at91sam9x5-rtc" compatible RTC will not necessarily be touched by the > "non responding IMR" bug: at91sam9n12 or upcoming sama5d3 are not affected for > instance, and we need to cling to "atmel,at91rm9200-rtc" for them... > I think that we can use this method for the moment and move to another > compatibility string later if it is needed. Rather than have so many people working on rtc-at91rm9200.c, how about someone bring its "RTT" sibling into the DT world. I'm talking about drivers/rtc/rtc-at91sam9.c ... Doug Gilbert