Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <c573ae8d-f2ee-403f-e096-eec4b31c682f@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:40:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: rtc: add bindings for max313xx RTCs
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Tilki, Ibrahim" <Ibrahim.Tilki@analog.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     "a.zummo@towertech.it" <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        "jdelvare@suse.com" <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        "linux@roeck-us.net" <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org" 
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        "linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Arslanbenzer, Zeynep" <Zeynep.Arslanbenzer@analog.com>
References: <20221019133910.282-1-Ibrahim.Tilki@analog.com>
 <20221019133910.282-2-Ibrahim.Tilki@analog.com> <Y1G6FIvS6WD57GXW@mail.local>
 <DM8PR03MB62477670C186E6CC5308B600962D9@DM8PR03MB6247.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <Y1KQvPAwh7NC0wbA@mail.local>
 <DM8PR03MB6247691C7AD890FA486A5955962D9@DM8PR03MB6247.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <DM8PR03MB6247691C7AD890FA486A5955962D9@DM8PR03MB6247.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 21/10/2022 09:05, Tilki, Ibrahim wrote:
>> On 21/10/2022 11:44:12+0000, Tilki, Ibrahim wrote:
>>>>> +  interrupt-names:
>>>>> +    description: |
>>>>> +      Name of the interrupt pin of the RTC used for IRQ. Not required for
>>>>> +      RTCs that only have single interrupt pin available. Some of the RTCs
>>>>> +      share interrupt pins with clock input/output pins.
>>>>> +    minItems: 1
>>>>> +    items:
>>>>> +      - enum: [INTA, INTB]
>>>>> +      - enum: [INTA, INTB]
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this is right, what this is doing is essentially pinmuxing
>>>> interrupts versus clocks. What happens if you want INTB but this goes
>>>> directly to a PMIC instead of the SoC?
>>>> It is not something you can express with your current bindings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would a user want INTB when it is not connected to SoC?
>>> User can specify none, either one or both of the interrupt pins.
>>> I don't see what the problem here is.
>>>
>>
>> the interrupt pin may be connected to a PMIC that is able to start or
>> wake up the platform. In that case, the user would not have any
>> interrupt-names and your driver will fail to mux the interrupt on INTB.
>> Please fix.
> 
> Interrupt muxing depends on the clock configuration, not the interrupt-names property.
> Devices don't support muxing the alarm interrupt independently.
> 
> For example in the case of max31329, alarm interrupt is muxed into INTA by default.
> Alarm interrupt is muxed into INTB pin if and only if clkin is enabled.\

Just to be sure: are you now describing hardware or Linux driver behavior?

> 
> This means that if a user wants the alarm interrupt on INTB pin, they have to
> provide a clock input through "clocks" property. If that is the case, they can provide
> an interrupt for INTB pin, otherwise the alarm feature of the rtc gets disabled.
> 
> Side note: Some devices have 2 Alarms but Alarm2 does not have a register for
> matching "seconds" so only Alarm1 is used by the driver.

Best regards,
Krzysztof