Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:35:57 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: rtc: stm32: add alarm A out property to select output | From | Valentin CARON <> |
| |
Hi Alexandre,
May I have your view regarding these new elements ?
Thank you, Valentin
On 5/23/22 14:34, Valentin CARON wrote: > Hi Alexandre, > > On 5/4/22 22:27, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On 04/05/2022 15:06:13+0200, Valentin Caron wrote: >>> STM32 RTC can pulse some SOC pins when an alarm of RTC expires. >>> >>> This patch adds property to activate alarm A output. The pulse can >>> output on three pins RTC_OUT1, RTC_OUT2, RTC_OUT2_RMP >>> (PC13, PB2, PI8 on stm32mp15) (PC13, PB2, PI1 on stm32mp13). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Valentin Caron <valentin.caron@foss.st.com> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml | 19 >>> ++++++++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml >>> index 56d46ea35c5d..71e02604e8de 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/st,stm32-rtc.yaml >>> @@ -59,6 +59,13 @@ properties: >>> Refer to <include/dt-bindings/rtc/rtc-stm32.h> for the >>> supported values. >>> Pinctrl state named "default" may be defined to reserve pin >>> for RTC output. >>> + st,alarm: >>> + $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32" >>> + description: | >>> + To select and enable RTC Alarm A output. >>> + Refer to <include/dt-bindings/rtc/rtc-stm32.h> for the >>> supported values. >>> + Pinctrl state named "default" may be defined to reserve pin >>> for RTC output. >>> + >>> allOf: >>> - if: >>> properties: >>> @@ -75,6 +82,9 @@ allOf: >>> st,lsco: >>> maxItems: 0 >>> + st,alarm: >>> + maxItems: 0 >>> + >>> clock-names: false >>> required: >>> @@ -95,6 +105,9 @@ allOf: >>> st,lsco: >>> maxItems: 0 >>> + st,alarm: >>> + maxItems: 0 >>> + >>> required: >>> - clock-names >>> - st,syscfg >>> @@ -117,6 +130,9 @@ allOf: >>> st,lsco: >>> maxItems: 1 >>> + st,alarm: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> + >>> required: >>> - clock-names >>> @@ -153,8 +169,9 @@ examples: >>> clocks = <&rcc RTCAPB>, <&rcc RTC>; >>> clock-names = "pclk", "rtc_ck"; >>> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; >>> + st,alarm = <RTC_OUT1>; >>> st,lsco = <RTC_OUT2_RMP>; >> Shouldn't that be exactly the opposite? You have two pins that can >> output different functions. The property should be the pin and the value >> the function. I'd go even further and I would say this is actually >> pinmuxing. >> > You're right, if the property is the pin and the value the function, > this looks like a pinctrl node. > We choose to develop theses functionalities in the reverse order, to > avoid the complexity of adding > the pinctrl framework to our driver. Moreover, LSCO and AlarmA may > haven't a peripheral client and > this would probably require to also implement pinctrl hogging. > > Is the implementation that we have proposed is acceptable regarding > theses elements ? > > Thank you, > Valentin >
| |