Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:27:54 -0800 | From | Ray Jui <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv1] rtc: bcm-iproc: Add support for Broadcom iproc rtc |
| |
On 12/16/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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. > Giving that CRMU has scattered, miscellaneous control logic for multiple different peripherals, it probably makes more sense to use the syscon logic here.
>>> 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 >
| |