From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E5BC433F5 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231818AbiCDPoI (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2022 10:44:08 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57160 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240480AbiCDPoH (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2022 10:44:07 -0500 Received: from relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (relay8-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.201]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4FBF6BDEE; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 07:43:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (Authenticated sender: alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 706891BF203; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:43:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1646408597; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DuDywd0Iu3hrHJ/1yYYDf0hLNoWpE4Lk1omLHli7PTo=; b=Tx0sM4e0E3YYWrdHr5WHAVMou9sbVVE89x7T8TvtJejAdc3K6t4ECWHIQ59CcaII3TC2uR 8IMR4ewGNjFC8SrZgxcyGCjYB/xatqblpyX4ixBgAtQgpzCycJAO/TlE5k0pTi2C0hlhMp w8j4mIovOQC/CsqVmRvfsVKsppudhWm4zNywgzzitNLvyFKB0536OJhRMJ9YVN2w5L0Q+Y Sjov42xNsFDmCpV48k6W15adLOigXQGsIJQEWBeROcxdqPOnYsau4rGXYkgFFPL9EsW9LG j6u6Suf8tJNrRIi06sfeSDeOTdodqX4b4B68VrVlNS+R+lgFPNc5CVOZRNtO8w== Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 16:43:16 +0100 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Sergiu.Moga@microchip.com Cc: a.zummo@towertech.it, robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ARM: dts: at91: Add the required `atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg` property Message-ID: References: <20220304142746.121947-1-sergiu.moga@microchip.com> <20220304142746.121947-2-sergiu.moga@microchip.com> <8f5d56ba-1a51-f9ab-43a2-86d7c938fbe2@microchip.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f5d56ba-1a51-f9ab-43a2-86d7c938fbe2@microchip.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org On 04/03/2022 15:29:45+0000, Sergiu.Moga@microchip.com wrote: > On 04.03.2022 16:53, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 04/03/2022 16:27:42+0200, Sergiu Moga wrote: > >> Add the required `atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg` property to the `rtt` nodes > >> of the board files that were missing it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sergiu Moga > >> --- > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts | 4 ++++ > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts | 8 ++++++++ > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9rlek.dts | 4 ++++ > >> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts > >> index beed819609e8..3c1f40b4a13e 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts > >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts > >> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ dbgu: serial@fffff200 { > >> status = "okay"; > >> }; > >> > >> + rtc@fffffd20 { > >> + atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg = <&gpbr 0x0>; > >> + }; > >> + > >> watchdog@fffffd40 { > >> status = "okay"; > >> }; > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts > >> index 71f60576761a..1208bb580d14 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts > >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts > >> @@ -102,6 +102,14 @@ mtd_dataflash@0 { > >> }; > >> }; > >> > >> + rtc@fffffd20 { > >> + atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg = <&gpbr 0x0>; > >> + }; > >> + > >> + rtc@fffffd50 { > >> + atmel,rtt-rtc-time-reg = <&gpbr 0x4>; > >> + }; > > Do we really need two RTCs with the exact same features on that board? > > Is there a check failure hen the property is not there and the node is > > disabled? > > > I can understand your point here. No, it is indeed not really needed > since, from what I can see, they are both disabled in the SoC file. The > reason why I added both was that I thought it would have been more > consistent. Do you think I should remove both in this file and keep the > changes in the other 2 files only? > Well, I would keep the first node but not the second so that you have a good example, ready to be enabled. -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com