Re: [patch 3/3] mpc8349emitx.dts: Add ds1339 RTC

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:33:58PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> Hrm... we probably want an "i2c" device_type class, but I don't think
> >>> we've actually defined one, which is a problem
> >>
> >> By defining new device_type's, or new semantics for device_type,
> >> you open the door to (accidentally) becoming incompatible with
> >> "real" OF.
> >
> > Hrm... perhaps.  But is it a realistic danger - I'll have to think
> > more about that.
> 
> It is trivial to avoid these dangers completely by not overloading
> the meaning of "device_type".

Hrm.  Perhaps.

> >>> I think we want to think a bit more carefully about how to do  
> >>> bindings
> >>> for RTC devices.  No "rtc" device_type is defined, but again we might
> >>> want to.
> >>
> >> Actually, "device_type" = "rtc" _is_ defined (in the "device support
> >> extensions" recommended practice), and there is no useful way a flat
> >> device tree can implement it (it merely defines get-time and set-time
> >> methods).
> >
> > Ah.. right.  That changes things a bit, in that we might want to
> > include device_type purely for similarity with real OF tree.
> 
> You should include the device_type only if you implement its binding,
> and a flat device tree does not, and cannot.  (In almost all cases,
> a flat device tree cannot implement device_type's semantics -- this
> means that pretty much the only case where a flat tree should use
> device_type is to have it as a workaround for bad kernel requirements).

I really don't think there's an ambiguity here.  A flat-tree can
clearly never implement runtime binding features.  This is also true
for a flat tree derived from a real OF, and so full of device_type all
over the place.

> > Real OF has a device_type == "nvram" too, doesn't it?
> 
> Yes, same "device support extensions" document.

Erm.. I've lost track amongst our various threads.  Which same
document?

> > AFAICT the real
> > OF systems I have (which I think all have ISA-like CMOS RTC/NVRAM
> > chips) the RTC is labelled as "nvram" rather than "rtc".
> 
> Sounds buggy.

Why?

[snip]
> > I did find one real OF binding for a different Dallas RTC (and NVRAM),
> > see:
> >
> > http://playground.sun.com/1275/proposals/Closed/Remanded/Accepted/346- 
> > it.txt
> >
> > It's a little different from the example above.
> 
> That is a binding for the nvram part only, not for the RTC.

Hrm.  So how do you suggest we do bindings for combined devices?

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson