Re: [PATCH 6/6] documentation: bindings: document PMIC8921/8058 RTC

[Stephen Boyd]

On 03/05/14 16:00, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:58:55PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 03/05/14 11:29, Josh Cartwright wrote:
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/qcom,pm8xxx-rtc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/qcom,pm8xxx-rtc.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..699bd30
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/qcom,pm8xxx-rtc.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
>>> +* Real-Time Clock for Qualcomm 8058/8921 PMICs
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +- compatible: should be one of the following.
>>> +    * "qcom,pm8058-rtc"
>>> +    * "qcom,pm8921-rtc"
>>> +- reg: base address of the register region
>>> +- reg-names: corresponding reg names for the regions listed in the 'reg'
>>> +             property, must contain:
>>> +     "rtc_base" - base of the RTC register region
>> optional reg-names?
>>
>>> +- interrupts: interrupt list for the RTC, must contain a single interrupt
>>> +              specifier for the alarm interrupt
>>> +- interrupt-names: corresponding interrupt names for the interrupts listed in
>>> +                   the 'interrupts' property, must contain:
>>> +     "alarm" - summary interrupt for PMIC peripherals
>> optional interrupt-names?
> It isn't clear to me why these should be made optional, I hope Rob
> provides some clarification in the sdhci-msm thread.

Looks like the driver isn't using either of these properties, so I'm not
sure why they're needed. Maybe they should just be removed.

>
>
>>> +- linux,allow-set-time: indicates that the setting of RTC time is allowed by
>>> +                        the host CPU
>> Is this a "linux" property? It seems like something that other OSes
>> would want to know about and doesn't require any explicit knowledge
>> about operating  system things (like keymaps for example).
> Yeah, I wasn't quite sure how to name this property.  It's
> Linux-specific in the sense that the underlying operation method is
> "set_time", but I agree this should be named something else...
>
> How do you feel about simply "allow-set-time"?

Sounds ok to me.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/