From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arun Ramamurthy Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] rtc: bcm-iproc: Add support for Broadcom iproc rtc Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:17:41 -0800 Message-ID: <54DD2685.6020207@broadcom.com> References: <1418757750-3628-1-git-send-email-arun.ramamurthy@broadcom.com> <549095CA.7090505@broadcom.com> <5490A9FC.6030305@broadcom.com> <1603624.EMYvBCWhuM@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1603624.EMYvBCWhuM@wuerfel> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Ray Jui , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, a.zummo-BfzFCNDTiLLj+vYz1yj4TQ@public.gmane.org, sbranden-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org, Arun Ramamurthy , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, rtc-linux-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Arnd My apologies for the late reply, I was moved to other work items. I wanted to get more clarification on the syscon issue so that I can submit the next patch set. If I understand correctly, you would like me to move the CRMU logic to a new driver under mfd/ and use the syscon api calls in my rtc driver? Thanks Arun On 14-12-17 06:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 16 December 2014 13:54:04 Arun Ramamurthy wrote: >> On 14-12-16 12:27 PM, Ray Jui wrote: >>> On 12/16/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> >>>> It sounds like CRMU is some other unit aside from the RTC. Could this >>>> be something like a generic system controller? I think it should >>>> either have its own driver or use the syscon logic if that is what >>>> this is. >>>> >>> Giving that CRMU has scattered, miscellaneous control logic for multiple >>> different peripherals, it probably makes more sense to use the syscon >>> logic here. >>> >> Arnd, thanks for the feedback. If I was to write a separate driver for >> the CRMU, I would have to export certain functions and create an api >> that only this RTC driver would use. I am not sure that is efficient or >> required. What is your opinion? >> Would it be better if I use the syson api in my current driver and move >> the CRMU registers to separate syscon device tree entry? >> > > This is something that's normally up to the platform maintainers, depending > on what works best for a given SoC. If you have a control block that > wants to export the same high-level API for multiple drivers, that's > fine, but if literally every register does something different, a syscon > driver works best. > > It's also possible that some of the functions of the CRMU already have > abstractions, like system-reset, device-reset, regulator or clock support. > In that case, you can still use syscon but have the more other drivers > use that for accessing the registers. > > Arnd > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html