On 18/12/2019 16:52:21+0000, Eugen.Hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On 18.12.2019 18:43, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 18/12/2019 16:24:00+0000, Eugen.Hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This allows the RTC node to have child nodes in DT. > >> This allows subnodes to be probed. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c > >> index 3b833e0..f1b5b3d 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c > >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-at91rm9200.c > >> @@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ static int __init at91_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> at91_rtc_write_ier(AT91_RTC_SECEV); > >> > >> dev_info(&pdev->dev, "AT91 Real Time Clock driver.\n"); > >> - return 0; > >> + return of_platform_populate(pdev->dev.of_node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev); > >> > > > > You can avoid the DT binding change and DT parsing by using > > platform_add_device here. I don't think there is any point describing > > the trigger as a child node (a watchdog functionality wouldn't be > > described for example). > > > > Hi, > > It's needed because the ADC needs a link to the trigger device. This is > a hardware link inside the SoC, so I thought the best way is to describe > this hardware is in the Device Tree. > Otherwise the ADC node is unaware of the RTC triggering possibility. > If we just assign the RTC trigger device to the ADC through the sysfs, > the ADC cannot distinguish between the RTC trigger and other various > triggers which can be attached. > I'm not sure this links is required but I will let Jonathan review. Even if it is needed, you can still use the rtc node to describe that link. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
