Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv1] rtc: bcm-iproc: Add support for Broadcom iproc rtc | Date | Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:19:05 +0100 |
| |
On Tuesday 16 December 2014 12:05:08 Arun Ramamurthy wrote: > On 14-12-16 11:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 16 December 2014 11:22:30 arun.ramamurthy@broadcom.com wrote: > >> + rtc: iproc_rtc@0x03026000 { > >> + compatible = "brcm,iproc-rtc"; > >> + reg = spru_bbl: <0x03026000 0xC>, > >> + crmu_pwr_good_status: <0x0301C02C 0x14>, > >> + crmu_bbl_auth: <0x03024C74 0x8>; > >> + interrupts = spru_rtc_periodic: <GIC_SPI 142 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > >> + spru_alarm: <GIC_SPI 133 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; > > > > The reg properties look really random, could it be that the registers > > are really part of some other device that contains multiple functions? > > > This RTC block is on a battery backed logic island and is accessed > indirectly using the spru_bbl registers. The CRMU registers are required > to read the power status and write to some authentication registers. > Without writing to these authentication > registers, we cannot access any of the spru_bbl registers. In conclusion > I don't think the CRMU register accesses can be considered as another > device access. Do you agree Arnd?
It sounds like CRMU is some other unit aside from the RTC. Could this be something like a generic system controller? I think it should either have its own driver or use the syscon logic if that is what this is.
> > Also, what do you use the labels for? > > > The labels are purely to improve readability of the device tree entry
Please remove them then, they don't help at all.
Arnd
| |