LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arun Ramamurthy <email@example.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Ray Jui <email@example.com>,
Arun Ramamurthy <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] rtc: bcm-iproc: Add support for Broadcom iproc rtc
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:40:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F789CD.email@example.com> (raw)
On 15-03-04 02:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 12 February 2015 14:17:41 Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
>> Hi Arnd
>> My apologies for the late reply, I was moved to other work items. I
>> wanted to get more clarification on the syscon issue so that I can
>> submit the next patch set. If I understand correctly, you would like
>> me to move the CRMU logic to a new driver under mfd/ and use the syscon
>> api calls in my rtc driver? Thanks
> It depends a lot on what's in there, I can best advise you if you
> have some form of register list.
> A common approach would be to not have a driver for the crmu at all,
> but just mark it as syscon, and have the other drivers either reference
> the syscon node through a phandle, or create them as childrem of
> the syscon node. The latter case makes most sense if all uses of
> the crmu have no other MMIO registers.
Thank you Arnd, I am going to follow the approach of adding a child node
to the syscon node. Several other driver use other registers in the CRMU
so I think the child node approach makes the most sense.
>> On 14-12-17 06:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 16 December 2014 13:54:04 Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
>>>> On 14-12-16 12:27 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2014 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>>> It sounds like CRMU is some other unit aside from the RTC. Could this
>>>>>> be something like a generic system controller? I think it should
>>>>>> either have its own driver or use the syscon logic if that is what
>>>>>> this is.
>>>>> Giving that CRMU has scattered, miscellaneous control logic for multiple
>>>>> different peripherals, it probably makes more sense to use the syscon
>>>>> logic here.
>>>> Arnd, thanks for the feedback. If I was to write a separate driver for
>>>> the CRMU, I would have to export certain functions and create an api
>>>> that only this RTC driver would use. I am not sure that is efficient or
>>>> required. What is your opinion?
>>>> Would it be better if I use the syson api in my current driver and move
>>>> the CRMU registers to separate syscon device tree entry?
>>> This is something that's normally up to the platform maintainers, depending
>>> on what works best for a given SoC. If you have a control block that
>>> wants to export the same high-level API for multiple drivers, that's
>>> fine, but if literally every register does something different, a syscon
>>> driver works best.
>>> It's also possible that some of the functions of the CRMU already have
>>> abstractions, like system-reset, device-reset, regulator or clock support.
>>> In that case, you can still use syscon but have the more other drivers
>>> use that for accessing the registers.
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
>> the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-04 22:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-16 19:22 arun.ramamurthy
2014-12-16 19:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-16 20:05 ` Arun Ramamurthy
2014-12-16 20:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-16 20:27 ` Ray Jui
2014-12-16 21:54 ` Arun Ramamurthy
2014-12-17 14:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-02-12 22:17 ` Arun Ramamurthy
2015-03-04 22:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-04 22:40 ` Arun Ramamurthy [this message]
2015-03-04 22:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-04 22:53 ` Arun Ramamurthy
2015-03-04 22:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-11 20:00 ` Arun Ramamurthy
2015-03-11 20:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='Re: [PATCHv1] rtc: bcm-iproc: Add support for Broadcom iproc rtc' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).