From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laxman Dewangan Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:24:37 +0530 Message-ID: <56A1FC5D.5040506@nvidia.com> References: <1453407813-14646-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1453407813-14646-7-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1453407813-14646-7-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Javier Martinez Canillas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Kukjin Kim , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, Chanwoo Choi , Alexandre Belloni , Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > The MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks are very similar with only > these differences: > > 0) The RTC registers layout and addresses are different. > > 1) The MAX77686 use 1 bit of the sec/min/hour/etc registers as the > alarm enable while MAX77802 has a separate register for that. > > 2) The MAX77686 RTCYEAR register valid values range is 0..99 while > for MAX77802 is 0..199. > > 3) The MAX77686 has a separate I2C address for the RTC registers > while the MAX77802 uses the same I2C address as the PMIC regs. > > 5) The minimum delay before a RTC update (16 msecs vs 200 usecs). > > There are separate drivers for MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks > but the differences are not that big so the driver can be extended > to support both instead of duplicating a lot of code in 2 drivers. > > Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan