Re: [PATCH v1 01/16] dt-bindings: power: reset: mediatek: add bindings for power device

Sean Wang
2018-03-27T03:21:57Z

On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 17:24 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 05:14:58PM +0800, sean.wang@mediatek.com wrote:
> > From: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
> >
> > Add device-tree binding for the power device responsible for shutdown a
> > remote SoC, which is a tiny circuit block present on MediaTek PMIC based
> > RTC.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> > .../bindings/power/reset/mt6397-rtc-poweroff.txt | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/reset/mt6397-rtc-poweroff.txt
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/reset/mt6397-rtc-poweroff.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/reset/mt6397-rtc-poweroff.txt
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..75a9d7d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/reset/mt6397-rtc-poweroff.txt
> > @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> > +Device-Tree bindings for Power Device on MediaTek PMIC RTC
> > +
> > +The power device is responsible for externally power off or on the remote
> > +MediaTek SoC through the a tiny circuit block BBPU inside PMIC RTC.
> > +
> > +Required parent node:
> > +- rtc
> > + For MediaTek PMIC RTC bindings, see:
> > + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mt6397.txt
> > +
> > +Required properties:
> > +- compatible: Should be one of follows
> > + "mediatek,mt6323-rtc-poweroff": for MT6323 PMIC
> > + "mediatek,mt6397-rtc-poweroff": for MT6397 PMIC
> > +
> > +Example:
> > +
> > + rtc {
> > + compatible = "mediatek,mt6323-rtc";
> > +
> > + power-off {
> > + compatible = "mediatek,mt6323-rtc-poweroff";
> > + };
>
> There's no need for this node. The OS can register a device in the rtc
> driver.
>

It seems a good way.

I will remove the really simple dt-binding and use a
platform_device_register_simple api embedded in rtc driver to
register the power-off device.

Hope I do not misconception your points addressed here.

> > + };
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >