Re: [PATCH] rtc: rtc-at91sam9.c add DT support

[Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On 04/04/2013 03:25 PM, Douglas Gilbert :
> On 13-04-04 04:11 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> On 04/04/2013 05:54 AM, Douglas Gilbert :
>>> Some members of the at91 SoCs use the Real Time Timer (RTT)
>>> and the General Purpose Backup Registers (GPBR) to implement
>>> a real time clock (RTC). The AT91SAM9G20 is one example.
>>>
>>> Attached is a patch to add DT support to rtc-at91sam9.c .
>>> The patch is against lk 3.9.0-rc5 .
>>>
>>> Below is a snippet of DT code for the 'G20 that was observed
>>> to work with this patch:
>>>
>>> ahb {
>>>      apb {
>>>
>>>          rtc {
>>>              compatible = "atmel,at91sam9-rtc";
>>
>> The compatible string has to be formed by the name of the first SoC
>> compatible with this IP. It turns to be the at91sam9260.
>> The second part of the string should be a name that reflects the nature
>> of the peripheral. For this binding, I would like to mention the "RTT"
>> in the compatibility string (because other drivers can use other RTT
>> with other uses).
>>
>> What do you think about:
>> "atmel,at91sam9260-rtt-as-rtc"? or something shorter?
> 
> Hi Nicolas,
> Johan Hovold suggested:
>    atmel,at91sam9260-rtt

Yes, but I fear this could bring confusion if someone is building a RTT
driver that is not targeted at acting as a RTC...

> I notice (in the G20 doco) that the acronym RTTC is also used

The "C" at the end stands for "Controller" (not very useful convention
in my opinion).

> for the rtt registers. What do you want?

I found xxx-rtt-as-rtc or xxx-rtt-rtc but not completely satisfied with
any of them...

>>>                           /* RTTC followed by GPBR (backup registers) */
>>>                           reg = <0xfffffd20 0x10>, <0xfffffd50 0x10>;
>>>                           interrupts = <1 4 7>;
>>>                           status = "okay";
>>
>> Last, but not least, when we add a DT binding, it is a requirement to
>> add the corresponding documentation in the
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/ directory.
> 
> I have been underwhelmed by the accuracy and the organisation
> of information in that documentation. And the examples are
> often misleading given the actual hierarchy of real dtsi/dts
> config files.

Oh, really? I will have a look one of those days...


> Give me working examples any day. You could (and should) test
> what I gave on a g20ek board.
> 
> Also I note there is no "bindings" documentation for
> rtc-at91rm9200.c :-) After you, sir ....

Already submitted, my dear ;-)
Here:
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/drivers-rtc-rtc-at91rm9200c-add-dt-support.patch

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre