Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:30:51 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Jon Nettleton <jon@solid-run.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Miguel Borges de Freitas <miguelborgesdefreitas@gmail.com>,
        a.zummo@towertech.it, Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: rtc: pcf8523: add DSM pm option for
 battery switch-over
Message-ID: <20200727173051.GM1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <20200720112401.4620-2-miguelborgesdefreitas@gmail.com>
 <20200723174905.GA596242@bogus>
 <20200723195755.GV3428@piout.net>
 <20200727094553.GH1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <20200727144938.GC239143@piout.net>
 <20200727152439.GK1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <20200727154104.GE239143@piout.net>
 <20200727154335.GL1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <CABdtJHuVaTa5T0-KdQ-wZQrmFQ6HO3FvgnTgSo3aOi+=SPzDZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200727161632.GF239143@piout.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200727161632.GF239143@piout.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:16:32PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 27/07/2020 17:55:50+0200, Jon Nettleton wrote:
> > > So, can we please have that discussion, it is pertinent to this patch.
> > >
> > 
> > Thinking about this some more, I believe whether or not an IOCTL
> > interface is in the works or needed is irrelevant.  This patch
> > describes the hardware and how it is designed and the topic of
> > discussion is if we need a simple boolean state, or if we need
> > something that could be used to support dynamic configuration in the
> > future.  I would rather make this decision now rather than keep
> > tacking on boolean config options, or revisit a bunch of device-tree
> > changes.
> 
> Something that would describe the hardware is a property telling whether
> the filter is present on VDD, not a property selecting DSM. The driver
> can then chose to avoid standard mode when needed.

Whether DSM needs to be enabled or not is _not_ just a function of
whether there is a filter present or not.

The requirement in the data sheet is that when the VDD supply drops
below 2.5V, it does not fall more than 0.7V/ms.  That can be
achieved many different ways, not only by adding a resistive filter
to the VDD supply to the RTC.  It could also be achieved via the design
of the power supply - for example, having a large enough reservoir
capacitor to ensure under all loads that the VDD supply will not fall
faster than 0.7V/ms.

There are many ways to meet this requirement.

Adding a DT property to indicate whether the filter is present or not
is definitely not the right approach.  Should we also add properties
for every possible solution to this problem.

	vdd-has-filter;
	psu-has-large-capacitors;
	... etc ...

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!