Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1255888 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com> - 2015-10-26 14:10 +0100
    Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support  for S2MPS15 RTC Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> - 2015-10-28 00:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 02:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2015-10-28 03:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 03:20 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 04:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 04:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 04:50 +0100
              Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add  support for S2MPS15 RTC Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> - 2015-10-28 10:50 +0100
                Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support  for S2MPS15 RTC Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 11:50 +0100
                  Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support  for S2MPS15 RTC Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 14:40 +0100
                Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support  for S2MPS15 RTC Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2015-10-28 14:40 +0100
                  Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add  support for S2MPS15 RTC Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> - 2015-10-28 14:50 +0100

#1255888 — [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC

RTC found in s2mps15 is almost same as one found in s2mps14.
This patch add required changes to enable s2mps15 rtc timer.

Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c |   14 +++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c
index f2504b4eef34..ac3286a267ba 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c
@@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ static inline int s5m_check_peding_alarm_interrupt(struct s5m_rtc_info *info,
 		ret = regmap_read(info->regmap, S5M_RTC_STATUS, &val);
 		val &= S5M_ALARM0_STATUS;
 		break;
+	case S2MPS15X:
 	case S2MPS14X:
 	case S2MPS13X:
 		ret = regmap_read(info->s5m87xx->regmap_pmic, S2MPS14_REG_ST2,
@@ -253,6 +254,7 @@ static inline int s5m8767_rtc_set_alarm_reg(struct s5m_rtc_info *info)
 		data &= ~S5M_RTC_TIME_EN_MASK;
 		break;
 	case S2MPS14X:
+	case S2MPS15X:
 		data |= S2MPS_RTC_RUDR_MASK;
 		break;
 	case S2MPS13X:
@@ -317,7 +319,8 @@ static int s5m_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 	u8 data[info->regs->regs_count];
 	int ret;
 
-	if (info->device_type == S2MPS14X || info->device_type == S2MPS13X) {
+	if (info->device_type == S2MPS14X || info->device_type == S2MPS15X ||
+						info->device_type == S2MPS13X) {
 		ret = regmap_update_bits(info->regmap,
 				info->regs->rtc_udr_update,
 				S2MPS_RTC_RUDR_MASK, S2MPS_RTC_RUDR_MASK);
@@ -339,6 +342,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 		break;
 
 	case S5M8767X:
+	case S2MPS15X:
 	case S2MPS14X:
 	case S2MPS13X:
 		s5m8767_data_to_tm(data, tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
@@ -366,6 +370,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
 		s5m8763_tm_to_data(tm, data);
 		break;
 	case S5M8767X:
+	case S2MPS15X:
 	case S2MPS14X:
 	case S2MPS13X:
 		ret = s5m8767_tm_to_data(tm, data);
@@ -414,6 +419,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
 		break;
 
 	case S5M8767X:
+	case S2MPS15X:
 	case S2MPS14X:
 	case S2MPS13X:
 		s5m8767_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
@@ -463,6 +469,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_stop_alarm(struct s5m_rtc_info *info)
 		break;
 
 	case S5M8767X:
+	case S2MPS15X:
 	case S2MPS14X:
 	case S2MPS13X:
 		for (i = 0; i < info->regs->regs_count; i++)
@@ -508,6 +515,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_start_alarm(struct s5m_rtc_info *info)
 		break;
 
 	case S5M8767X:
+	case S2MPS15X:
 	case S2MPS14X:
 	case S2MPS13X:
 		data[RTC_SEC] |= ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
@@ -548,6 +556,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
 		break;
 
 	case S5M8767X:
+	case S2MPS15X:
 	case S2MPS14X:
 	case S2MPS13X:
 		s5m8767_tm_to_data(&alrm->time, data);
@@ -631,6 +640,7 @@ static int s5m8767_rtc_init_reg(struct s5m_rtc_info *info)
 		ret = regmap_raw_write(info->regmap, S5M_ALARM0_CONF, data, 2);
 		break;
 
+	case S2MPS15X:
 	case S2MPS14X:
 	case S2MPS13X:
 		data[0] = (0 << BCD_EN_SHIFT) | (1 << MODEL24_SHIFT);
@@ -679,6 +689,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
 	switch (platform_get_device_id(pdev)->driver_data) {
+	case S2MPS15X:
 	case S2MPS14X:
 	case S2MPS13X:
 		regmap_cfg = &s2mps14_rtc_regmap_config;
@@ -805,6 +816,7 @@ static const struct platform_device_id s5m_rtc_id[] = {
 	{ "s5m-rtc",		S5M8767X },
 	{ "s2mps13-rtc",	S2MPS13X },
 	{ "s2mps14-rtc",	S2MPS14X },
+	{ "s2mps15-rtc",	S2MPS15X },
 	{ },
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, s5m_rtc_id);
-- 
1.7.10.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257450 — Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC

On 26/10/2015 at 18:21:22 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote :
> RTC found in s2mps15 is almost same as one found in s2mps14.
> This patch add required changes to enable s2mps15 rtc timer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>

One really small nitpick below else you can add my
Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>

> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c |   14 +++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> @@ -317,7 +319,8 @@ static int s5m_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  	u8 data[info->regs->regs_count];
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	if (info->device_type == S2MPS14X || info->device_type == S2MPS13X) {
> +	if (info->device_type == S2MPS14X || info->device_type == S2MPS15X ||
> +						info->device_type == S2MPS13X) {

This line is not properly aligned.

>  		ret = regmap_update_bits(info->regmap,
>  				info->regs->rtc_udr_update,
>  				S2MPS_RTC_RUDR_MASK, S2MPS_RTC_RUDR_MASK);

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257559

On 26.10.2015 21:51, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> RTC found in s2mps15 is almost same as one found in s2mps14.
> This patch add required changes to enable s2mps15 rtc timer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c |   14 +++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

NACK.

I don't have S2MPS15 datasheet but looking at the code right now this
looks *exactly the same* device as S2MPS14.

If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use.
No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c
> index f2504b4eef34..ac3286a267ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c
> @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ static inline int s5m_check_peding_alarm_interrupt(struct s5m_rtc_info *info,
>  		ret = regmap_read(info->regmap, S5M_RTC_STATUS, &val);
>  		val &= S5M_ALARM0_STATUS;
>  		break;
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  	case S2MPS14X:
>  	case S2MPS13X:
>  		ret = regmap_read(info->s5m87xx->regmap_pmic, S2MPS14_REG_ST2,
> @@ -253,6 +254,7 @@ static inline int s5m8767_rtc_set_alarm_reg(struct s5m_rtc_info *info)
>  		data &= ~S5M_RTC_TIME_EN_MASK;
>  		break;
>  	case S2MPS14X:
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  		data |= S2MPS_RTC_RUDR_MASK;
>  		break;
>  	case S2MPS13X:
> @@ -317,7 +319,8 @@ static int s5m_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  	u8 data[info->regs->regs_count];
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	if (info->device_type == S2MPS14X || info->device_type == S2MPS13X) {
> +	if (info->device_type == S2MPS14X || info->device_type == S2MPS15X ||
> +						info->device_type == S2MPS13X) {
>  		ret = regmap_update_bits(info->regmap,
>  				info->regs->rtc_udr_update,
>  				S2MPS_RTC_RUDR_MASK, S2MPS_RTC_RUDR_MASK);
> @@ -339,6 +342,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  		break;
>  
>  	case S5M8767X:
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  	case S2MPS14X:
>  	case S2MPS13X:
>  		s5m8767_data_to_tm(data, tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
> @@ -366,6 +370,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  		s5m8763_tm_to_data(tm, data);
>  		break;
>  	case S5M8767X:
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  	case S2MPS14X:
>  	case S2MPS13X:
>  		ret = s5m8767_tm_to_data(tm, data);
> @@ -414,6 +419,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
>  		break;
>  
>  	case S5M8767X:
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  	case S2MPS14X:
>  	case S2MPS13X:
>  		s5m8767_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
> @@ -463,6 +469,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_stop_alarm(struct s5m_rtc_info *info)
>  		break;
>  
>  	case S5M8767X:
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  	case S2MPS14X:
>  	case S2MPS13X:
>  		for (i = 0; i < info->regs->regs_count; i++)
> @@ -508,6 +515,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_start_alarm(struct s5m_rtc_info *info)
>  		break;
>  
>  	case S5M8767X:
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  	case S2MPS14X:
>  	case S2MPS13X:
>  		data[RTC_SEC] |= ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
> @@ -548,6 +556,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
>  		break;
>  
>  	case S5M8767X:
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  	case S2MPS14X:
>  	case S2MPS13X:
>  		s5m8767_tm_to_data(&alrm->time, data);
> @@ -631,6 +640,7 @@ static int s5m8767_rtc_init_reg(struct s5m_rtc_info *info)
>  		ret = regmap_raw_write(info->regmap, S5M_ALARM0_CONF, data, 2);
>  		break;
>  
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  	case S2MPS14X:
>  	case S2MPS13X:
>  		data[0] = (0 << BCD_EN_SHIFT) | (1 << MODEL24_SHIFT);
> @@ -679,6 +689,7 @@ static int s5m_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	switch (platform_get_device_id(pdev)->driver_data) {
> +	case S2MPS15X:
>  	case S2MPS14X:
>  	case S2MPS13X:
>  		regmap_cfg = &s2mps14_rtc_regmap_config;
> @@ -805,6 +816,7 @@ static const struct platform_device_id s5m_rtc_id[] = {
>  	{ "s5m-rtc",		S5M8767X },
>  	{ "s2mps13-rtc",	S2MPS13X },
>  	{ "s2mps14-rtc",	S2MPS14X },
> +	{ "s2mps15-rtc",	S2MPS15X },
>  	{ },
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, s5m_rtc_id);
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257573

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use.
> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple.

Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it
being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that
there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is
intended to be the same).  Though in the case of a MFD that information
can be obtained from the MFD for the device.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257585

On 28.10.2015 10:53, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
>> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use.
>> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple.
> 
> Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it
> being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that
> there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is
> intended to be the same).  Though in the case of a MFD that information
> can be obtained from the MFD for the device.

We can always differentiate later and introduce new compatible.
Declaring a compatible right now would be useful only if we really cared
about using the workaround on older DTBs.

Since I cannot judge the difference (I don't have the datasheet of
S2MPS15) then I don't see the need of adding new compatible/name for the
"same device".

Of course maybe there is such need? Alim?

Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257637

Hello,

On 10/28/2015 07:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28.10.2015 10:53, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>>> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use.
>>> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple.
>>
>> Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it
>> being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that
>> there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is
>> intended to be the same).  Though in the case of a MFD that information
>> can be obtained from the MFD for the device.
>
> We can always differentiate later and introduce new compatible.
> Declaring a compatible right now would be useful only if we really cared
> about using the workaround on older DTBs.
>
> Since I cannot judge the difference (I don't have the datasheet of
> S2MPS15) then I don't see the need of adding new compatible/name for the
> "same device".
>
> Of course maybe there is such need? Alim?
>
Well I did think of keeping the changes as minimal as possible, like 
just have "{ "s2mps15-rtc",        S2MPS14X }", since I don't have 
access to s2mps14 UM, I could not confirm that s2mps14 and s2mps15 are 
exactly the same w.r.t rtc block. So I proposed the current changes.

Well I do agree with Mark here, a name/compatible matching with the pmic 
is good to at least avoid confusion while looking at the sysfs.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257639

On 28.10.2015 12:14, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 10/28/2015 07:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 28.10.2015 10:53, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use.
>>>> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple.
>>>
>>> Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it
>>> being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that
>>> there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is
>>> intended to be the same).  Though in the case of a MFD that information
>>> can be obtained from the MFD for the device.
>>
>> We can always differentiate later and introduce new compatible.
>> Declaring a compatible right now would be useful only if we really cared
>> about using the workaround on older DTBs.
>>
>> Since I cannot judge the difference (I don't have the datasheet of
>> S2MPS15) then I don't see the need of adding new compatible/name for the
>> "same device".
>>
>> Of course maybe there is such need? Alim?
>>
> Well I did think of keeping the changes as minimal as possible, like
> just have "{ "s2mps15-rtc",        S2MPS14X }", since I don't have
> access to s2mps14 UM, I could not confirm that s2mps14 and s2mps15 are
> exactly the same w.r.t rtc block. So I proposed the current changes.
> 
> Well I do agree with Mark here, a name/compatible matching with the pmic
> is good to at least avoid confusion while looking at the sysfs.

What kind of confusion in sysfs? I don't see any... and already the
s2mps14-rtc name is used for S2MPS11 and S2MPS14.

The s2mps13 clock driver added new name and compatible... which was
probably totally unneeded (I missed that during review). We don't have
to make this as a rule...

Since we do not have any data about future workarounds and the
differences then just follow Ockham's razor - use the same name and
compatible.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257645

On 10/28/2015 09:01 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28.10.2015 12:14, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 10/28/2015 07:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 28.10.2015 10:53, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:29:56AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If that's true, then don't add new compatibles, new names etc. Re-use.
>>>>> No new code needed, no changes needed. Keep it simple.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it depends - it can be useful to get the information about it
>>>> being a different part into DT so that if in future we realise that
>>>> there is some difference (perhaps a bug workaround even if the IP is
>>>> intended to be the same).  Though in the case of a MFD that information
>>>> can be obtained from the MFD for the device.
>>>
>>> We can always differentiate later and introduce new compatible.
>>> Declaring a compatible right now would be useful only if we really cared
>>> about using the workaround on older DTBs.
>>>
>>> Since I cannot judge the difference (I don't have the datasheet of
>>> S2MPS15) then I don't see the need of adding new compatible/name for the
>>> "same device".
>>>
>>> Of course maybe there is such need? Alim?
>>>
>> Well I did think of keeping the changes as minimal as possible, like
>> just have "{ "s2mps15-rtc",        S2MPS14X }", since I don't have
>> access to s2mps14 UM, I could not confirm that s2mps14 and s2mps15 are
>> exactly the same w.r.t rtc block. So I proposed the current changes.
>>
>> Well I do agree with Mark here, a name/compatible matching with the pmic
>> is good to at least avoid confusion while looking at the sysfs.
>
> What kind of confusion in sysfs? I don't see any... and already the
> s2mps14-rtc name is used for S2MPS11 and S2MPS14.
>
> The s2mps13 clock driver added new name and compatible... which was
> probably totally unneeded (I missed that during review). We don't have
> to make this as a rule...
>
> Since we do not have any data about future workarounds and the
> differences then just follow Ockham's razor - use the same name and
> compatible.
>
ok, have request s2smp14 UM, will cross check and update accordingly.
Thanks.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257856 — Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC

On 28/10/2015 at 12:31:43 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote :
> The s2mps13 clock driver added new name and compatible... which was
> probably totally unneeded (I missed that during review). We don't have
> to make this as a rule...
> 
> Since we do not have any data about future workarounds and the
> differences then just follow Ockham's razor - use the same name and
> compatible.
> 

So you don't care about DT backward compatibility because when a
workaround will be needed for one of the IPs, then you will have to
update the old dtb to use it.

Unless you are sure that the IP is the same, doing

{ "s2mps15-rtc",	S2MPS14X },

is probably the best way to handle that. Note that I personally don't
care about the DT ABI, I'm just pointing out what may happen ;)

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1257895 — Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC

Hi Alexandre,

On 10/28/2015 03:18 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 28/10/2015 at 12:31:43 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote :
>> The s2mps13 clock driver added new name and compatible... which was
>> probably totally unneeded (I missed that during review). We don't have
>> to make this as a rule...
>>
>> Since we do not have any data about future workarounds and the
>> differences then just follow Ockham's razor - use the same name and
>> compatible.
>>
>
> So you don't care about DT backward compatibility because when a
> workaround will be needed for one of the IPs, then you will have to
> update the old dtb to use it.
>
> Unless you are sure that the IP is the same, doing
>
> { "s2mps15-rtc",	S2MPS14X },
>
> is probably the best way to handle that. Note that I personally don't
> care about the DT ABI, I'm just pointing out what may happen ;)
>
Thats what my point is, anyway I am still looking into the fine prints 
of the s2mps15 and s2mps14 user manual, now I have found at least one 
difference in their one of the register bit, which might be a good 
reason to keep s2mps15-rtc device.
Will update the same in v4.
Thanks,

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258026 — Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC

W dniu 28.10.2015 o 19:30, Alim Akhtar pisze:
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> On 10/28/2015 03:18 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> On 28/10/2015 at 12:31:43 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote :
>>> The s2mps13 clock driver added new name and compatible... which was
>>> probably totally unneeded (I missed that during review). We don't have
>>> to make this as a rule...
>>>
>>> Since we do not have any data about future workarounds and the
>>> differences then just follow Ockham's razor - use the same name and
>>> compatible.
>>>
>>
>> So you don't care about DT backward compatibility because when a
>> workaround will be needed for one of the IPs, then you will have to
>> update the old dtb to use it.
>>
>> Unless you are sure that the IP is the same, doing
>>
>> { "s2mps15-rtc",    S2MPS14X },
>>
>> is probably the best way to handle that. Note that I personally don't
>> care about the DT ABI, I'm just pointing out what may happen ;)
>>
> Thats what my point is, anyway I am still looking into the fine prints
> of the s2mps15 and s2mps14 user manual, now I have found at least one
> difference in their one of the register bit, which might be a good
> reason to keep s2mps15-rtc device.

No, this is not a good reason. Devices may be different but from
driver's perspective they behave the same. This means for example that
they use the same compatible. They can use the same driver name.

We have for example AHCI driver for entire range of different devices.
Some of them are different enough that require special code. So they
have different name and compatible. All of other use the same ahci
driver. But devices are different...

Best regards,
Krzysztof

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258030 — Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC

W dniu 28.10.2015 o 18:48, Alexandre Belloni pisze:
> On 28/10/2015 at 12:31:43 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote :
>> The s2mps13 clock driver added new name and compatible... which was
>> probably totally unneeded (I missed that during review). We don't have
>> to make this as a rule...
>>
>> Since we do not have any data about future workarounds and the
>> differences then just follow Ockham's razor - use the same name and
>> compatible.
>>
> 
> So you don't care about DT backward compatibility because when a
> workaround will be needed for one of the IPs, then you will have to
> update the old dtb to use it.

Nope, DTB does not contain the name for RTC driver (s2mps15-rtc). It
will be exactly the same.

> 
> Unless you are sure that the IP is the same, doing
> 
> { "s2mps15-rtc",	S2MPS14X },
> 
> is probably the best way to handle that. Note that I personally don't
> care about the DT ABI, I'm just pointing out what may happen ;)

In case of RTC driver there is no chance of DT ABI issues here.

The clock driver is different because it contain a compatible.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258041 — Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c: add support for S2MPS15 RTC

On 28/10/2015 at 22:31:48 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote :
> > So you don't care about DT backward compatibility because when a
> > workaround will be needed for one of the IPs, then you will have to
> > update the old dtb to use it.
> 
> Nope, DTB does not contain the name for RTC driver (s2mps15-rtc). It
> will be exactly the same.
> 

Sure, I see it now. So no change is needed in the rtc driver until you
need to use that particular bit that is different.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web