Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: rtc: add battery-low-hw-alarm property

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 2:22 AM Flavio Suligoi <f.suligoi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> > On 06/04/2019 01:07:13-0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 04:52:44PM +0200, Flavio Suligoi wrote:
> > > > Some RTC devices have a battery-low automatic detection circuit.
> > > > The battery-low event is usually reported with:
> > > >
> > > > - a bit change in a RTC status register
> > > > - a hw signaling (generally using an interrupt generation), changing
> > > >   the hw level of a specific pin;
> > > >
> > > > The new property "battery-low-hw-alarm" enable the RTC to generate the
> > > > hw signaling in case of battery-low event.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Flavio Suligoi <f.suligoi@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc.txt | 3 +++
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc.txt
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc.txt
> > > > index a97fc6a..f93a44d 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/rtc.txt
> > > > @@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ below.
> > > >                              expressed in femto Farad (fF).
> > > >                              The default value shall be listed (if
> > optional),
> > > >                              and likewise all valid values.
> > > > +- battery-low-hw-alarm :    Enable the "battery-low" output pin. This
> > function
> > > > +                            is available on the following devices:
> > > > +                            - pcf2127 - pin used for alarm: INTn
> > >
> > > Boolean? If there's cases where which pin is selectable, then we'd need
> > > this to take a value. Not sure how likely that is?
> > >
> >
> > Indeed, there is at least the pcf85363 that has two possible pins for
> > that interrupt. How would you select the pin then? a zero based index? a
> > string?

I prefer an index.

> I think the string could be clearer for the final user and would give
> more freedom for future changes.
> For example, we can call this property, instead of "battery-low-alarm" or
> "low-voltage-alarm", simply: "alarm-pin_1" and then the string argument
> can describe the function used; for example:
>
> alarm-pin_1 = "backup-supply-low-voltage-alarm";
> alarm-pin_2 = "......";

How many pins and functions then? And how does this relate to any interrupts?

Rob