Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752343AbbBLWQY (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:16:24 -0500 Received: from mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.63]:43144 "EHLO mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751199AbbBLWQW (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:16:22 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,567,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="57026280" Message-ID: <54DD2685.6020207@broadcom.com> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:17:41 -0800 From: Arun Ramamurthy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: Ray Jui , , , , , , , , Arun Ramamurthy , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] rtc: bcm-iproc: Add support for Broadcom iproc rtc References: <1418757750-3628-1-git-send-email-arun.ramamurthy@broadcom.com> <549095CA.7090505@broadcom.com> <5490A9FC.6030305@broadcom.com> <1603624.EMYvBCWhuM@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <1603624.EMYvBCWhuM@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2169 Lines: 50 Hi Arnd My apologies for the late reply, I was moved to other work items. I wanted to get more clarification on the syscon issue so that I can submit the next patch set. If I understand correctly, you would like me to move the CRMU logic to a new driver under mfd/ and use the syscon api calls in my rtc driver? Thanks Arun On 14-12-17 06:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 16 December 2014 13:54:04 Arun Ramamurthy wrote: >> On 14-12-16 12:27 PM, Ray Jui wrote: >>> On 12/16/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >> Arnd, thanks for the feedback. If I was to write a separate driver for >> the CRMU, I would have to export certain functions and create an api >> that only this RTC driver would use. I am not sure that is efficient or >> required. What is your opinion? >> Would it be better if I use the syson api in my current driver and move >> the CRMU registers to separate syscon device tree entry? >> > > This is something that's normally up to the platform maintainers, depending > on what works best for a given SoC. If you have a control block that > wants to export the same high-level API for multiple drivers, that's > fine, but if literally every register does something different, a syscon > driver works best. > > It's also possible that some of the functions of the CRMU already have > abstractions, like system-reset, device-reset, regulator or clock support. > In that case, you can still use syscon but have the more other drivers > use that for accessing the registers. > > Arnd > -- 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/