[PATCH v2 0/3] RTC: Add Loongson-2K0300 support

[PATCH v2 0/3] RTC: Add Loongson-2K0300 support

[Binbin Zhou]

Hi all:

This patch set introduces the Loongson-2K0300 RTC, which has a similar
hardware design to the Loongson-1B, but without the alarm feature.

Thanks.
Binbin

==========
V2:
Patch (1/3):
 - New patch, correct Loongson-1C `interrupts` property;

Patch (2/3):
 - Drop Loongson-1C changes;

Patch (3/3):
 - Rename LS1C_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND to LOONGSON_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND for
   consistency.

Link to V1:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1766471839.git.zhoubinbin@loongson.cn/

Binbin Zhou (3):
  dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Correct Loongson-1C interrupts property
  dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Document Loongson-2K0300 compatible
  rtc: loongson: Add Loongson-2K0300 support

 .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml | 14 ++++
 drivers/rtc/rtc-loongson.c                    | 71 ++++++++++++-------
 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)


base-commit: 16bd954c93360145bc77cc601e350913fc28182d
-- 
2.47.3

[PATCH v2 1/3] dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Correct Loongson-1C interrupts property

[Binbin Zhou]

The `interrupts` property indicates an RTC alarm interrupt, which is only
required for RTCs that support the alarm feature.

As we know, the Loongson-1C RTC does not support the alarm feature, so
it needs to be excluded.

Fixes: 487ef32caebe ("dt-bindings: rtc: Split loongson,ls2x-rtc into SoC-based compatibles")
Signed-off-by: Binbin Zhou <zhoubinbin@loongson.cn>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml        | 12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
index f89c1f660aee..8a2520f963d8 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
@@ -42,6 +42,18 @@ required:
 
 unevaluatedProperties: false
 
+if:
+  properties:
+    compatible:
+      not:
+        contains:
+          enum:
+            - loongson,ls1c-rtc
+
+then:
+  required:
+    - interrupts
+
 examples:
   - |
     #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
-- 
2.47.3

[PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Document Loongson-2K0300 compatible

[Binbin Zhou]

Add "loongson,ls2k0300-rtc" dedicated compatible to represent the RTC
interface of the Loongson-2K0300 chip.

Its hardware design is similar to that of the Loongson-1B, but it does
not support the alarm feature.

Signed-off-by: Binbin Zhou <zhoubinbin@loongson.cn>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
index 8a2520f963d8..b62419c33fd5 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ properties:
           - loongson,ls1b-rtc
           - loongson,ls1c-rtc
           - loongson,ls7a-rtc
+          - loongson,ls2k0300-rtc
           - loongson,ls2k1000-rtc
       - items:
           - enum:
@@ -49,6 +50,7 @@ if:
         contains:
           enum:
             - loongson,ls1c-rtc
+            - loongson,ls2k0300-rtc
 
 then:
   required:
-- 
2.47.3

[PATCH v2 3/3] rtc: loongson: Add Loongson-2K0300 support

[Binbin Zhou]

The Loongson-2K0300's rtc hardware design is similar to that of the
Loongson-1B, but it does not support the alarm feature.

Introduce `LOONGSON_RTC_ALARM_WORKAROUND`, which indicates a chip that
does not support the alarm feature, and rewrite the related logic in
`loongson_rtc_alarm_setting()`.

Signed-off-by: Binbin Zhou <zhoubinbin@loongson.cn>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-loongson.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-loongson.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-loongson.c
index 2ca7ffd5d7a9..066f0644d1c3 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-loongson.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-loongson.c
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@
  * According to the LS1C manual, RTC_CTRL and alarm-related registers are not defined.
  * Accessing the relevant registers will cause the system to hang.
  */
-#define LS1C_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND	BIT(0)
+#define LOONGSON_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND	BIT(0)
+#define LOONGSON_RTC_ALARM_WORKAROUND	BIT(1)
 
 struct loongson_rtc_config {
 	u32 pm_offset;	/* Offset of PM domain, for RTC alarm wakeup */
@@ -89,7 +90,7 @@ static const struct loongson_rtc_config ls1b_rtc_config = {
 
 static const struct loongson_rtc_config ls1c_rtc_config = {
 	.pm_offset = 0,
-	.flags = LS1C_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND,
+	.flags = LOONGSON_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND | LOONGSON_RTC_ALARM_WORKAROUND,
 };
 
 static const struct loongson_rtc_config generic_rtc_config = {
@@ -97,6 +98,11 @@ static const struct loongson_rtc_config generic_rtc_config = {
 	.flags = 0,
 };
 
+static const struct loongson_rtc_config ls2k0300_rtc_config = {
+	.pm_offset = 0x0,
+	.flags = LOONGSON_RTC_ALARM_WORKAROUND,
+};
+
 static const struct loongson_rtc_config ls2k1000_rtc_config = {
 	.pm_offset = 0x800,
 	.flags = 0,
@@ -153,7 +159,7 @@ static int loongson_rtc_set_enabled(struct device *dev)
 {
 	struct loongson_rtc_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
 
-	if (priv->config->flags & LS1C_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND)
+	if (priv->config->flags & LOONGSON_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND)
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Enable RTC TOY counters and crystal */
@@ -167,7 +173,7 @@ static bool loongson_rtc_get_enabled(struct device *dev)
 	u32 ctrl_data;
 	struct loongson_rtc_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
 
-	if (priv->config->flags & LS1C_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND)
+	if (priv->config->flags & LOONGSON_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND)
 		return true;
 
 	ret = regmap_read(priv->regmap, RTC_CTRL_REG, &ctrl_data);
@@ -299,9 +305,41 @@ static const struct rtc_class_ops loongson_rtc_ops = {
 	.alarm_irq_enable = loongson_rtc_alarm_irq_enable,
 };
 
+static int loongson_rtc_alarm_setting(struct platform_device *pdev, void __iomem *regs)
+{
+	int ret = 0, alarm_irq;
+	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+	struct loongson_rtc_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+
+	if (priv->config->flags & LOONGSON_RTC_ALARM_WORKAROUND) {
+		/* Loongson-1C/Loongson-2K0300 RTC does not support alarm */
+		clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, priv->rtcdev->features);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	/* Get RTC alarm irq */
+	alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
+	if (alarm_irq < 0)
+		return alarm_irq;
+
+	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, alarm_irq, loongson_rtc_isr, 0, "loongson-alarm",
+			       priv);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		return ret;
+
+	priv->pm_base = regs - priv->config->pm_offset;
+	device_init_wakeup(dev, true);
+
+	if (has_acpi_companion(dev))
+		acpi_install_fixed_event_handler(ACPI_EVENT_RTC,
+						 loongson_rtc_handler, priv);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
 static int loongson_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
-	int ret, alarm_irq;
+	int ret;
 	void __iomem *regs;
 	struct loongson_rtc_priv *priv;
 	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
@@ -330,25 +368,9 @@ static int loongson_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(priv->rtcdev),
 				     "devm_rtc_allocate_device failed\n");
 
-	/* Get RTC alarm irq */
-	alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
-	if (alarm_irq > 0) {
-		ret = devm_request_irq(dev, alarm_irq, loongson_rtc_isr,
-				       0, "loongson-alarm", priv);
-		if (ret < 0)
-			return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Unable to request irq %d\n",
-					     alarm_irq);
-
-		priv->pm_base = regs - priv->config->pm_offset;
-		device_init_wakeup(dev, true);
-
-		if (has_acpi_companion(dev))
-			acpi_install_fixed_event_handler(ACPI_EVENT_RTC,
-							 loongson_rtc_handler, priv);
-	} else {
-		/* Loongson-1C RTC does not support alarm */
-		clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, priv->rtcdev->features);
-	}
+	ret = loongson_rtc_alarm_setting(pdev, regs);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	/* Loongson RTC does not support UIE */
 	clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_UPDATE_INTERRUPT, priv->rtcdev->features);
@@ -379,6 +401,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id loongson_rtc_of_match[] = {
 	{ .compatible = "loongson,ls1b-rtc", .data = &ls1b_rtc_config },
 	{ .compatible = "loongson,ls1c-rtc", .data = &ls1c_rtc_config },
 	{ .compatible = "loongson,ls7a-rtc", .data = &generic_rtc_config },
+	{ .compatible = "loongson,ls2k0300-rtc", .data = &ls2k0300_rtc_config },
 	{ .compatible = "loongson,ls2k1000-rtc", .data = &ls2k1000_rtc_config },
 	{ /* sentinel */ }
 };
-- 
2.47.3

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] RTC: Add Loongson-2K0300 support

[Huacai Chen]

For the whole series:

Reviewed-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 9:34 AM Binbin Zhou <zhoubinbin@loongson.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi all:
>
> This patch set introduces the Loongson-2K0300 RTC, which has a similar
> hardware design to the Loongson-1B, but without the alarm feature.
>
> Thanks.
> Binbin
>
> ==========
> V2:
> Patch (1/3):
>  - New patch, correct Loongson-1C `interrupts` property;
>
> Patch (2/3):
>  - Drop Loongson-1C changes;
>
> Patch (3/3):
>  - Rename LS1C_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND to LOONGSON_RTC_CTRL_WORKAROUND for
>    consistency.
>
> Link to V1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1766471839.git.zhoubinbin@loongson.cn/
>
> Binbin Zhou (3):
>   dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Correct Loongson-1C interrupts property
>   dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Document Loongson-2K0300 compatible
>   rtc: loongson: Add Loongson-2K0300 support
>
>  .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml | 14 ++++
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-loongson.c                    | 71 ++++++++++++-------
>  2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 16bd954c93360145bc77cc601e350913fc28182d
> --
> 2.47.3
>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Document Loongson-2K0300 compatible

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:33:32AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> Add "loongson,ls2k0300-rtc" dedicated compatible to represent the RTC
> interface of the Loongson-2K0300 chip.
> 
> Its hardware design is similar to that of the Loongson-1B, but it does
> not support the alarm feature.

But you are requiring the interrupt property for it? Isn't it no alarm 
feature means no interrupt?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Binbin Zhou <zhoubinbin@loongson.cn>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
> index 8a2520f963d8..b62419c33fd5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ properties:
>            - loongson,ls1b-rtc
>            - loongson,ls1c-rtc
>            - loongson,ls7a-rtc
> +          - loongson,ls2k0300-rtc
>            - loongson,ls2k1000-rtc
>        - items:
>            - enum:
> @@ -49,6 +50,7 @@ if:
>          contains:
>            enum:
>              - loongson,ls1c-rtc
> +            - loongson,ls2k0300-rtc
>  
>  then:
>    required:
> -- 
> 2.47.3
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Document Loongson-2K0300 compatible

[Binbin Zhou]

Hi Rob:

Thanks for your review.

On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:13 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:33:32AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > Add "loongson,ls2k0300-rtc" dedicated compatible to represent the RTC
> > interface of the Loongson-2K0300 chip.
> >
> > Its hardware design is similar to that of the Loongson-1B, but it does
> > not support the alarm feature.
>
> But you are requiring the interrupt property for it? Isn't it no alarm
> feature means no interrupt?

Yes, the `interrupts` attribute is not required without the alarm feature.

But my judgment condition is `not contains` (added in patch-1[1]).
There are only a few SoCs on the Loongson platform that don't support
the RTC alarm feature, so I think `not contains` looks cleaner and
simpler.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8876bebaf08121bb5edd2500f5289284b75df011.1767663073.git.zhoubinbin@loongson.cn/

>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Binbin Zhou <zhoubinbin@loongson.cn>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
> > index 8a2520f963d8..b62419c33fd5 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/loongson,rtc.yaml
> > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ properties:
> >            - loongson,ls1b-rtc
> >            - loongson,ls1c-rtc
> >            - loongson,ls7a-rtc
> > +          - loongson,ls2k0300-rtc
> >            - loongson,ls2k1000-rtc
> >        - items:
> >            - enum:
> > @@ -49,6 +50,7 @@ if:
> >          contains:
> >            enum:
> >              - loongson,ls1c-rtc
> > +            - loongson,ls2k0300-rtc
> >
> >  then:
> >    required:
> > --
> > 2.47.3
> >

-- 
Thanks.
Binbin

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Document Loongson-2K0300 compatible

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 09:22:41AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> Hi Rob:
> 
> Thanks for your review.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:13 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:33:32AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > > Add "loongson,ls2k0300-rtc" dedicated compatible to represent the RTC
> > > interface of the Loongson-2K0300 chip.
> > >
> > > Its hardware design is similar to that of the Loongson-1B, but it does
> > > not support the alarm feature.
> >
> > But you are requiring the interrupt property for it? Isn't it no alarm
> > feature means no interrupt?
> 
> Yes, the `interrupts` attribute is not required without the alarm feature.
> 
> But my judgment condition is `not contains` (added in patch-1[1]).
> There are only a few SoCs on the Loongson platform that don't support
> the RTC alarm feature, so I think `not contains` looks cleaner and
> simpler.

I should have said allowing rather than requiring.

You are allowing (though not requiring) 'interrupts' for Loongson-1B and 
Loongson-2K0300. In patch 1, you made it required for other platforms 
which is an ABI change. That's fine if it was a mistake and is truly 
required.

Rob

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Document Loongson-2K0300 compatible

[Binbin Zhou]

Hi Rob:

Thanks for your reply.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 4:58 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 09:22:41AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > Hi Rob:
> >
> > Thanks for your review.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:13 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:33:32AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > > > Add "loongson,ls2k0300-rtc" dedicated compatible to represent the RTC
> > > > interface of the Loongson-2K0300 chip.
> > > >
> > > > Its hardware design is similar to that of the Loongson-1B, but it does
> > > > not support the alarm feature.
> > >
> > > But you are requiring the interrupt property for it? Isn't it no alarm
> > > feature means no interrupt?
> >
> > Yes, the `interrupts` attribute is not required without the alarm feature.
> >
> > But my judgment condition is `not contains` (added in patch-1[1]).
> > There are only a few SoCs on the Loongson platform that don't support
> > the RTC alarm feature, so I think `not contains` looks cleaner and
> > simpler.
>
> I should have said allowing rather than requiring.
>
> You are allowing (though not requiring) 'interrupts' for Loongson-1B and
> Loongson-2K0300. In patch 1, you made it required for other platforms
> which is an ABI change. That's fine if it was a mistake and is truly
> required.

Emm, it's true that for the binding interface, Patch-1 is indeed an
ABI change, but it's more of a fixed patch.

Throughout all existing Loongson DTS{i}, RTC nodes decide whether to
include the `interrupts` property or not based on the alarm feature.
Loongson-1c rtc nodes do not include the `interrupts` attribute [1],
while all other Loongson chip rtc nodes do [2].

So, while this is an ABI change, I don't think it affects existing
Loongson DTS{i} rtc nodes. Also, it more accurately describes the
features of the corresponding RTC device.

Therefore, I would like to clarify it in the Patch-1 commit message of
the next patch version and fix the error in the commit title:
dt-binding -> dt-bindings.

How do you feel about that?

[1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18/source/arch/mips/boot/dts/loongson/loongson1c.dtsi#L98
[2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18/source/arch/loongarch/boot/dts/loongson-2k0500.dtsi#L486

>
> Rob

-- 
Thanks.
Binbin

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Document Loongson-2K0300 compatible

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 1:39 AM Binbin Zhou <zhoubb.aaron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 4:58 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 09:22:41AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > > Hi Rob:
> > >
> > > Thanks for your review.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:13 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:33:32AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > > > > Add "loongson,ls2k0300-rtc" dedicated compatible to represent the RTC
> > > > > interface of the Loongson-2K0300 chip.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its hardware design is similar to that of the Loongson-1B, but it does
> > > > > not support the alarm feature.
> > > >
> > > > But you are requiring the interrupt property for it? Isn't it no alarm
> > > > feature means no interrupt?
> > >
> > > Yes, the `interrupts` attribute is not required without the alarm feature.
> > >
> > > But my judgment condition is `not contains` (added in patch-1[1]).
> > > There are only a few SoCs on the Loongson platform that don't support
> > > the RTC alarm feature, so I think `not contains` looks cleaner and
> > > simpler.
> >
> > I should have said allowing rather than requiring.
> >
> > You are allowing (though not requiring) 'interrupts' for Loongson-1B and
> > Loongson-2K0300. In patch 1, you made it required for other platforms
> > which is an ABI change. That's fine if it was a mistake and is truly
> > required.
>
> Emm, it's true that for the binding interface, Patch-1 is indeed an
> ABI change, but it's more of a fixed patch.
>
> Throughout all existing Loongson DTS{i}, RTC nodes decide whether to
> include the `interrupts` property or not based on the alarm feature.
> Loongson-1c rtc nodes do not include the `interrupts` attribute [1],
> while all other Loongson chip rtc nodes do [2].
>
> So, while this is an ABI change, I don't think it affects existing
> Loongson DTS{i} rtc nodes. Also, it more accurately describes the
> features of the corresponding RTC device.
>
> Therefore, I would like to clarify it in the Patch-1 commit message of
> the next patch version and fix the error in the commit title:
> dt-binding -> dt-bindings.
>
> How do you feel about that?

That's fine, but you also need:

else:
  properties:
    interrupts: false

So that on the 2 platforms without an interrupt(alarm), 'interrupts'
is not allowed.

With that, you might as well just drop the 'not' and flip the 'then'
and 'else' schemas around.

Rob

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: rtc: loongson: Document Loongson-2K0300 compatible

[Binbin Zhou]

Hi Rob:

Thanks for your reply.

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 1:00 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 1:39 AM Binbin Zhou <zhoubb.aaron@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob:
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 4:58 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 09:22:41AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > > > Hi Rob:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your review.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 3:13 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 09:33:32AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> > > > > > Add "loongson,ls2k0300-rtc" dedicated compatible to represent the RTC
> > > > > > interface of the Loongson-2K0300 chip.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its hardware design is similar to that of the Loongson-1B, but it does
> > > > > > not support the alarm feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > But you are requiring the interrupt property for it? Isn't it no alarm
> > > > > feature means no interrupt?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the `interrupts` attribute is not required without the alarm feature.
> > > >
> > > > But my judgment condition is `not contains` (added in patch-1[1]).
> > > > There are only a few SoCs on the Loongson platform that don't support
> > > > the RTC alarm feature, so I think `not contains` looks cleaner and
> > > > simpler.
> > >
> > > I should have said allowing rather than requiring.
> > >
> > > You are allowing (though not requiring) 'interrupts' for Loongson-1B and
> > > Loongson-2K0300. In patch 1, you made it required for other platforms
> > > which is an ABI change. That's fine if it was a mistake and is truly
> > > required.
> >
> > Emm, it's true that for the binding interface, Patch-1 is indeed an
> > ABI change, but it's more of a fixed patch.
> >
> > Throughout all existing Loongson DTS{i}, RTC nodes decide whether to
> > include the `interrupts` property or not based on the alarm feature.
> > Loongson-1c rtc nodes do not include the `interrupts` attribute [1],
> > while all other Loongson chip rtc nodes do [2].
> >
> > So, while this is an ABI change, I don't think it affects existing
> > Loongson DTS{i} rtc nodes. Also, it more accurately describes the
> > features of the corresponding RTC device.
> >
> > Therefore, I would like to clarify it in the Patch-1 commit message of
> > the next patch version and fix the error in the commit title:
> > dt-binding -> dt-bindings.
> >
> > How do you feel about that?
>
> That's fine, but you also need:
>
> else:
>   properties:
>     interrupts: false
>
> So that on the 2 platforms without an interrupt(alarm), 'interrupts'
> is not allowed.
>
> With that, you might as well just drop the 'not' and flip the 'then'
> and 'else' schemas around.

OK, I'll fall back to the writeup in the v1 patchset as follows:

if:
  properties:
    compatible:
      contains:
        enum:
          - loongson,ls1c-rtc
          - loongson,ls2k0300-rtc

then:
  properties:
    interrupts: false

>
> Rob

-- 
Thanks.
Binbin