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;
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:16:31 +0200
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
To:     Eric Chanudet <echanude@redhat.com>
CC:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com>,
        Brian Masney <bmasney@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: pm8450a: add rtc node
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <20221213181855.ylkb3dglw3bkwor5@echanude>
References: <20221213005539.1133443-1-echanude@redhat.com> <219F5CF2-BA91-4749-A32C-84BCF541ECE0@linaro.org> <20221213181855.ylkb3dglw3bkwor5@echanude>
Message-ID: <6F3DC711-88FE-423E-A025-B6AF526B89F2@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


On 13 December 2022 20:18:55 EET, Eric Chanudet <echanude@redhat=2Ecom> wr=
ote:
>On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 04:18:00AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a=2Edtsi b/arch/arm64/boot=
/dts/qcom/pm8450a=2Edtsi
>> >index 34fc72896761=2E=2Eaf761dbfbc66 100644
>> >--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a=2Edtsi
>> >+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8450a=2Edtsi
>> >@@ -13,6 +13,14 @@ pm8450a: pmic@0 {
>> > 		#address-cells =3D <1>;
>> > 		#size-cells =3D <0>;
>> >=20
>> >+		rtc@6000 {
>> >+			compatible =3D "qcom,pm8941-rtc";
>> >+			reg =3D <0x6000>;
>> >+			reg-names =3D "rtc", "alarm";
>> >+			interrupts =3D <0x0 0x61 0x1 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>;
>>=20
>>=20
>> 0x60?
>
>Checking downstream it uses 0x61 for the ppid=2E This is also the case
>for all other descriptions of that RTC I could find=2E On the other hand,
>that does not describe the "alarm" register bank at 0x6100=2E
>Should it be added, if anything to match reg-names?

Definitely yes=2E I think otherwise it breaks the idea of reg-names=2E

>
>I tried a quick test of the alarm on sa8540p-ride:
>$ echo $(date '+%s' -d '+ 10 seconds') > /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/wakealarm
>It logged the interrupt:
>172:          3          0          0          0          0          0   =
       0          0  pmic_arb 101777441 Edge      pm8xxx_rtc_alarm
>

--=20
With best wishes
Dmitry