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;
Message-ID: <8f47c350219719cbd8706ebc079b064cfa43ce95.camel@yadro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rtc: pch-rtc: add Intel Series PCH built-in
 read-only RTC
From:   Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@yadro.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Milton Miller II <miltonm@us.ibm.com>
CC:     Paul Fertser <fercerpav@gmail.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        <openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 02:52:55 +0300
In-Reply-To: <ff8a8a78fefd2639fa0bcc68bbbb98ec9f1f2e4a.camel@yadro.com>
References: <YRhQJ4kdyu1Xs1Rb@piout.net>
         <20210810154436.125678-1-i.mikhaylov@yadro.com>
         <20210814224215.GX15173@home.paul.comp>
         <OFBF96A764.75CCED3A-ON00258734.0062B30C-00258734.00634222@ibm.com>
         <YRwWmeQiVC3dGAjH@piout.net>
         <ff8a8a78fefd2639fa0bcc68bbbb98ec9f1f2e4a.camel@yadro.com>
Organization: YADRO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 14:56 +0300, Ivan Mikhaylov wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 22:05 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 17/08/2021 18:04:09+0000, Milton Miller II wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Aug 16, 2021, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > > On 15/08/2021 01:42:15+0300, Paul Fertser wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 06:44:34PM +0300, Ivan Mikhaylov wrote:
> > > > > > Add RTC driver with dt binding tree document. Also this driver
> > > > adds one sysfs
> > > > > > attribute for host power control which I think is odd for RTC
> > > > driver.
> > > > > > Need I cut it off and use I2C_SLAVE_FORCE? I2C_SLAVE_FORCE is not
> > > > good
> > > > > > way too from my point of view. Is there any better approach?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reading the C620 datasheet I see this interface also allows other
> > > > > commands (wake up, watchdog feeding, reboot etc.) and reading
> > > > statuses
> > > > > (e.g Intruder Detect, POWER_OK_BAD).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think if there's any plan to use anything other but RTC via this
> > > > > interface then the driver should be registered as an MFD.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This is not the current thinking, if everything is integrated, then
> > > > there is no issue registering a watchdog from the RTC driver. I'll
> > > > let
> > > > you check with Lee...
> > > 
> > > I think the current statement is "if they are truly disjoint 
> > > hardware controls" then an MFD might suffice, but if they require 
> > > software cordination the new auxillary bus seems to be desired.
> > > 
> > 
> > Honestly, the auxiliary bus doesn't provide anything that you can't do
> > by registering a device in multiple subsystem from a single driver.
> > (Lee Jones, Mark Brown and I did complain at the time that this was yet
> > another back channel for misuses).
> > 
> > > > > However, I'm not sure what is the correct interface for
> > > > poweroff/reboot
> > > > control.
> > > 
> > > While there is a gpio interface to a simple regulator switch,
> > > the project to date has been asserting direct or indirect 
> > > gpios etc to control the host.   If these are events to 
> > > trigger a change in state and not a direct state change
> > > that some controller trys to follow, maybe a message delivery 
> > > model?   (this is not to reboot or cycle the bmc).
> > > 
> > > milton
> > 
> 
> Alexandre, gentle reminder about this one series. I can get rid off from sysfs
> attribute and put it like RO rtc without any additional things for now as
> starter.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

ping

Thanks.