Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:18:48 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
To:     Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, sre@kernel.org,
        lee.jones@linaro.org, a.zummo@towertech.it,
        eddie.huang@mediatek.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/16] dt-bindings: rtc: mediatek: add bindings for
 PMIC RTC
Message-ID: <20180327151848.GD22441@piout.net>
References: <cover.1521794176.git.sean.wang@mediatek.com>
 <5846e8be319c4836808c8127d5bb51b7e999e896.1521794177.git.sean.wang@mediatek.com>
 <20180323094118.GC3417@piout.net>
 <20180323101505.GF3417@piout.net>
 <1521920188.31197.13.camel@mtkswgap22>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1521920188.31197.13.camel@mtkswgap22>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 25/03/2018 at 03:36:28 +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> just reply both replies in the same mail
> 
> 1.) the power-off device is a part of rtc, use the same registers rtc
> has and thus it is put as child nodes under the node rtc to reflect the
> reality of characteristics the rtc has.
> 
> Or am I wrong for a certain aspect in these opinions?
> 

My point is that it is also part of the PMIC so it may as well be
registers from the mfd driver which already registers a bunch of devices
instead of doing unusual stuff from the rtc driver.

mt6397_rtc->regmap is mt6397_chip->regmap anyway. You have the added
benefit that if the RTC driver probe fails for some reason, you may
still be able to probe the reset driver.

I don't tink there is any benefit having it as a child of the rtc
device.

> 2) the other sub-functions for the same pmic already created its own
> dt-binding document belonged to its corresponding subsystem. Don't we
> really want to follow it them all?
> 

Ok, that's fine.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com