> -----Original Message-----
> From: claudiu beznea <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 9:17 AM
> To: Biju Das <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> Claudiu Beznea <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] dt-bindings: rtc: renesas,rzg3s-rtc: Document the Renesas RZ/G3S RTC
>
> Hi, Biju,
>
> On 14.06.2024 10:53, Biju Das wrote:
> > Hi Claudiu,
> >
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: linux-arm-kernel <[email protected]>
> >> On Behalf Of Claudiu
> >> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 8:19 AM
> >> Subject: [PATCH 05/12] dt-bindings: rtc: renesas,rzg3s-rtc: Document
> >> the Renesas RZ/G3S RTC
> >>
> >> From: Claudiu Beznea <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Document the RTC IP (RTCA-3) available on the Renesas RZ/G3S SoC.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> .../bindings/rtc/renesas,rzg3s-rtc.yaml | 60 +++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100644
> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/renesas,rzg3s-rtc.yaml
> >>
> >> diff --git
> >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/renesas,rzg3s-rtc.yaml
> >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/renesas,rzg3s-rtc.yaml
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..0e17f8a36155
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/renesas,rzg3s-rtc.yaml
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
> >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2
> >> +---
> >> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/rtc/renesas,rzg3s-rtc.yaml#
> >
> > Please make it generic renesas,rtca3-rtc.yaml. Future SoCs may use this IP.
> > So use IP name instead.
>
> From what I know the file name should correspond with the compatible that file was introduced with,
> and this one shouldn't be generic but SoC specific.
I maybe wrong, I was under the impression, we should use "vendor,ipname" for the filename
and compatible should use vendor,ipname as generic compatible.
If there are differences between SoCs, then use SoC specific compatible.
Currently there is one device, so not sure??
Cheers,
Biju
>
> Thank you,
> Claudiu Beznea
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Biju
> >
> >> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> >> +
> >> +title: Real Time Clock for Renesas RZ/G3S SoC
> >> +
> >> +maintainers:
> >> + - Claudiu Beznea <[email protected]>
> >> +
> >> +properties:
> >> + compatible:
> >> + const: renesas,rzg3s-rtc
> >> +
> >> + reg:
> >> + maxItems: 1
> >> +
> >> + interrupts:
> >> + maxItems: 3
> >> +
> >> + interrupt-names:
> >> + items:
> >> + - const: alarm
> >> + - const: period
> >> + - const: carry
> >> +
> >> + clocks:
> >> + maxItems: 1
> >> + description: RTC counter clock
> >> +
> >> + clock-names:
> >> + maxItems: 1
> >> +
> >> +required:
> >> + - compatible
> >> + - reg
> >> + - interrupts
> >> + - interrupt-names
> >> + - clocks
> >> + - clock-names
> >> +
> >> +additionalProperties: false
> >> +
> >> +examples:
> >> + - |
> >> + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> >> + #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
> >> +
> >> + rtc: rtc@1004ec00 {
> >> + compatible = "renesas,rzg3s-rtc";
> >> + reg = <0x1004ec00 0x400>;
> >> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 315 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >> + <GIC_SPI 316 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >> + <GIC_SPI 317 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> >> + interrupt-names = "alarm", "period", "carry";
> >> + clocks = <&vbattclk>;
> >> + clock-names = "counter";
> >> + status = "disabled";
> >> + };
> >> --
> >> 2.39.2
> >>
> >
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 08:22:57AM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > >> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/rtc/renesas,rzg3s-rtc.yaml#
> > >
> > > Please make it generic renesas,rtca3-rtc.yaml. Future SoCs may use this IP.
> > > So use IP name instead.
> >
> > From what I know the file name should correspond with the compatible that file was introduced with,
> > and this one shouldn't be generic but SoC specific.
>
> I maybe wrong, I was under the impression, we should use "vendor,ipname" for the filename
> and compatible should use vendor,ipname as generic compatible.
> If there are differences between SoCs, then use SoC specific compatible.
>
> Currently there is one device, so not sure??
The usual policy for new files is "filename matching a compatible".